JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Japan flips on nuclear — it tried to go Green without it but now wants to reopen closed plants

Nuclear’s suddenly the answer to “Net Zero” — Japan wants to triple its nuclear power by 2030

It’s the third largest economy in the world, and a large but quiet vacuum of global fossil fuels. Right now it’s the second largest importer of gas in the world after China, and the third largest importer of coal (not that Extinction Rebellion seems to care).

Before the Fukushima disaster in 2011, nuclear power generation produced as much as 30% of Japan’s energy mix, but that’s now shrunk to just 6%. Japan has only six operating nuclear reactors left with a total capacity of six gigawatts, down from 54 before the Fukushima incident. Just a few days ago polls showed that that the fear and negativity of nuclear power in Japan has dramatically shifted in the last few months.  One little war can change everything. Russia has suddenly given everyone permission to get serious about nuclear power.

Now the Japanese government wants to grow back from 6% to 20% nuclear in just 8 years.

Japan Sees Nuclear Energy As A Vital Piece Of Its Net-Zero Plan

OilPrice.com

Prior to the Fukushima disaster, nuclear power generation accounted for almost 30% of Japan’s energy mix.

Though some plants have resumed operation since then, nuclear energy currently accounts for only around 6.2% of Japan’s energy mix. To make up for the nuclear shortfall, Japan stepped up imports of natural gas; liquified natural gas (LNG) imports jumped 12,621 thousand tonnes between 2010 and 2011.

PM Kishida’s administration …aims to leverage Japan’s nuclear infrastructure to help achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, hoping to have nuclear energy take up between 20-22% of the energy mix by 2030.

The Economist in 2020 lamented that the energy transition was not transitioning

Half of those renewables in the graph are from hydropower:

 

The Japanese government tried to help renewables, but nuclear power was replaced with coal and gas:

IN THE WAKE of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, enthusiasm for renewable energy in Japan swelled. Kan Naoto, the prime minister at the time, declared that the country would draw up a new energy strategy “from scratch” and “elevate” renewables. One of his government’s last acts before losing power was to pass a law to stimulate renewable energy. Dozens of small firms sprang up. Fukushima prefecture itself pledged to get all its power from renewable sources by 2040.

The hoped-for transformation, however, has been slow. Renewable generation has grown from 10% of the power supply in 2010 to 17% in 2018, almost half of which comes from old hydropower schemes. Most nuclear plants, which provided more than a quarter of the country’s power before the disaster, have been shut down, at least for the time being. But for the most part they have been replaced not by wind turbines and solar panels but by power stations that burn coal and natural gas.

They’re all returning to nuclear power –  Germany, France and the UK. When will Australia consider it? 

10 out of 10 based on 82 ratings

152 comments to Japan flips on nuclear — it tried to go Green without it but now wants to reopen closed plants

  • #
    Erasmus

    Here in Australia our leadership and those seeking to become leaders have all abandoned common sense and succumbed to the dominant green meme. Mark Latham is one of the very few politicians holding a seat who support nuclear.
    We are for the most part governed by the unworthy and misinformed by lying media.

    661

    • #
      Dennis

      In recent time the Federal Government has proposed one new HELE coal fired power station and an offer to underwrite the finance for a private sector venture, the Queensland Labor Government has not given planning approval or indicated an intention to approve this project.

      At the same time or around that time a Federal proposal was issued for construction of four new gas fired generators, one each for Victoria and Queensland and two for New South Wales. To date only one has planning approval, for a New South Wales Hunter Valley location.

      So imagine trying to get State Government support for modular nuclear generators.

      330

      • #
        wal1957

        So imagine trying to get State Government support for modular nuclear generators.

        Refer to Erasmus at #1
        Rinse…repeat…

        Australia is abundant in natural resources…except common sense.

        240

      • #
        Lewis P Buckingham

        The new Premier of SA supports nuclear.
        SA desperately needs dispatchable base load power and independence from its inter state grid connections.
        The long view is that a home grown nuclear plant would mean ‘learnings’, or education, in nuclear technologies.
        You know, the education nation.
        SA has heaps of uranium and a place to store waste in igneous rock.
        The spin off would be better industry and defense capability to build more destroyers.
        Who knows, we could eventually service our own leased or purchased/ built nuclear attack class subs there, a long way from China and the Solomons.

        20

        • #
          StephenP

          At least in Japan reality has hit the fan.
          When, or even will it ever do so in SA.

          00

          • #
            b.nice

            SA has large amounts of gas they can bring on line when needed. And a batch of diesel generators.

            There really are a small state, though, with not much industry left, so it doesn’t really matter, just an inconvenience.

            00

    • #
      GreatAuntJanet

      One Nation support nuclear (well, investigating it at least 🙂 )

      50

  • #
    Neville

    We can only hope that the Labor and Greens loonies don’t get a landslide in May and just hope the Coalition start to wake up to themselves.
    But I wouldn’t hold my breath and probably small modular Nukes are the the best future hope for Aussies?
    But Labor/Greens are totally clueless and BELIEVE that you can run a country with the unreliable,dilute and TOXIC S & W fantasies.
    But where are the data analysts, Engineers and so called scientists etc to tell the public the truth?
    Good luck to the Japanese, at least their pollies are providing proper leadership , logic and reason and also some of the EU countries if they now have the sense to change.

    340

    • #
      Ian1946

      I share your fears about a Labor/Green government being elected in May. The consequences will be disastrous. However, the LNP have not shown leadership and really do not deserve to retain government.

      It should be obvious that Nuclear, especially SMR’s are the answer if they are cost effective and can be safely operated. I understand the nuclear submarine reactors never need refuelling in their lifetime which I assume would be at least 20 years when they would be swapped out with a new unit. The saving in diesel in remote mining sites and its transportation for power generation would be substantial.

      Adam Bandt would never allow an ALP administration to implement any nuclear projects.

      310

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Ian1946:
        Nuclear submarine reactors run on highly enriched uranium and are removed at end of life and buried somewhere.
        You do not need to have a giant nuclear plant, that is a consequence of the Regulatory overload of costs which make small units uneconomic (and it is easier to have one plant rather than get permission for many). Russia (or rather the USSR) wasn’t bothered and installed several smaller units. The never-ending saga of giant new nuclear plants in the UK (maybe one ready after 20+ years) should be a warning.
        Until we have “renewables” causing blackouts we won’t get nuclear in Australia.

        270

      • #
        Annie

        Why should Adam Bandt be allowed to be the arbiter in this matter? The tail is wagging the dog; disgraceful.

        200

    • #
      Dennis

      I keep thinking about the Rudd-Gillard Union controlled Labor Federal Governments 2007-2013, and that Mr Albanese and most of the other Labor MPs of today were members during the Rudd-Gillard terms in office.

      200

    • #
      David Maddison

      Australia is almost finished as it is.

      At the next Federal election Green Labor will almost certainly be elected and they will be the final death blow.

      We will end up in a Venezuela-style situation.

      310

    • #
      Dennis

      At the 2019 Federal Election Labor gained 15 seats on Greens preferences.

      130

    • #
      Ronin

      “But where are the data analysts, Engineers and so called scientists etc to tell the public the truth?”

      They would like to keep their careers and not get Peter Ridded.

      210

  • #
    David Maddison

    Was the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident really a “disaster”? One (1) person is known to have died from radiation.

    Other attributed deaths related to evacuation procedures, nothing to do with radiation or the nuclear plant itself.

    15,000 died from the tsunami, not radiation.

    Calling it a “disaster” just plays into the opponents of reliable and inexpensive energy generation.

    560

    • #
      Leo G

      Was the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident really a “disaster”?

      It was a near miss which has led to a reassessment of the uncertainty range for rare events affecting the operation of nuclear power facilities.

      A loss of containment event for a reactor was estimated to be less likely than one event per 10,000 operating years, yet this Fukushima facility suffered 3 such events in the space of several days.

      Moreover, the risk from the fuel assemblies stored in the ponds above the reactors had been greatly underestimated.

      In particular the situation with he Number 4 reactor which had a core-load of fuel assemblies in the pond while the reactor was undergoing maintenance.

      Had there been a major release from the thousands of stored assemblies at the plant, then a massive evacuation would be necessary, possibly as much as a third of Japan’s population.

      84

      • #
        David Maddison

        Lessons were learned.

        The failure was bought about flooding by the tsunami of the backup diesel generators.

        That was already recognised as a weakness and there were plans to correct it but obviously not acted on soon enough.

        Modern designs can be shut down without reliance on external power.

        180

        • #

          Exactly right David .. Fukushima was an ageing nuclear plant ….The modern designs are almost invulnerable to meltdown ….The smaller modular reactors that require minimal cooling water are ideal for Australian conditions

          10

  • #
    Dennis

    Meanwhile in Australia the inquiry into nuclear power stations during the Howard led Coalition Federal Government terms recommended modular nuclear generators positioned strategically around the country but later a majority of MPs voted against this proposal and to ban nuclear. State Governments have limited uranium mining ventures.

    The Morrison led Coalition Federal Government has also held an inquiry that favoured modular nuclear generators and the government has been investigating the UK Roll Royce design that the UK Government is interested in buying.

    Like so many roadblocks to nation building here nuclear could not proceed without the support of a majority of MPs in the Federal Parliament and even if they supported it State Parliaments would remain opposed to it, and without State planning approval including the other development requirements it could not proceed.

    And behind the parliaments and members is the United Nations unelected officials relying on agreements and treaties signed since the UN was established with member nations to block even projects of national importance and security related on various grounds but environment is one high on the list.

    190

    • #
      Lawrie

      It would only take one state to go nuclear and start providing cheaper power for the rejection to collapse. What is needed here is the abolishing of renewable subsidies and the abandonment of the National Grid. It is good to have connectors for emergencies but states need to compete and they do that with cheaper inputs and fewer regulations. There is not much industry left in SA for example. The only one I can think of is the subsidised defence ship building.

      90

  • #
    Dennis

    I heard a comment on Sky News last night that carbon tax is back on Labor’s agenda, that various businesses would be targeted, one example mentioned was the two remaining oil refineries marked for emissions carbon tax, but various other private sector businesses would be charged which of course cuts into operating profitability and would add to the cost of living and running businesses generally.

    280

    • #
      David Maddison

      Liberals (pretend conservative party) are bad enough but Labor will eliminate private car ownership for all but the Elites.

      180

      • #
        Ian1946

        And don’t forget the Greens want an inheritance tax as well.

        200

      • #
        PeterS

        Still hoping that the modern Libs are that different from the ALP? Oh well, I suppose it won’t matter soon. Only the blind can’t see that the only way to break the various scams about net zero emissions is to elect people in both houses that reject outright the CAGW myth. I don’t expect that will happen though so on goes the war on fossil fuels. I’m not really looking forward to buying an EV. I think I will keep my existing car and run it to the ground. It should survive me given my age. If they ban such cars then I will walk.

        180

        • #
          Dennis

          A good news story recently that the Liberal Federal Executive has moved against the NSW State LINO left Executive to impose traditional party values including candidates selected by electorate branch members. And the LINO chief executive has been making future plans that include a lobby businesses with “Richo” a partner, and that is interesting to see LINO and Labor together again in a private enterprise venture, not the first time.

          104

  • #
    Dennis

    Japan is of course reliant on imported fuels, Australia is a major exporter of those fuels including coal and of course countries continuing to construct new power stations with forward planning decades into the future for more rely most on coal and are now mining more from their own vast reserves than ever before as well as importing coal.

    My point is that coal fired power stations are much less expensive to construct and operate than nuclear so isn’t it obvious, or it should be obvious that Australia needs to replace the now planned for closure coal fired power stations first and foremost. Nuclear modular generators added where needed, maybe beginning with a new grid for remote areas now relying mostly on diesel generators?

    190

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      And as I have been pointing out for some years (and being ignored) modern coal plants would reduce CO2 emissions by 23-32% or as a share of World emission a reduction from 0.3% to 0.2% (figure rounded).

      80

      • #
        David Maddison

        Of what relevance is a reduction of CO2 emissions?

        Modern supercritical and ultrasupercritical coal plant is useful because it uses less fuel and is thus more economical to operate but I fail to see what relevance CO2 emissions are.

        130

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          David Maddison:
          No relevance at all, but you cannot get the idea into certain minds. Saying it will REDUCE CARBON (by a miniscule amount) will attract their attention when they are desperate to show some progress. Germany, the poster child of the gullible greenies started “reducing emissions” about the time that Nord Steam 2 was started. The next 10 years as they built wind turbines and covered anywhere they could (including churches) with solar panels while shutting down coal and nuclear plants their emissions didn’t reduce; in fact when you dig you find that burning wood chips and household rubbish aren’t considered to emit CO2, so their real emissions may have risen slightly. The gas from Russia (via Nord Steam) was supposed to cover for failures from renewables and, in theory, reduced emissions over using coal. That may have occured but they were also replacing non-CO2 emitting nuclear with CO2 emitting gas, so no benefit at all.

          60

  • #
    David Maddison

    On the 20th April 1986 the Kantale Dam in Sri Lanka collapsed and killed and estimated 120-180 people.

    On 26th April 1986 incompetent operators of a poorly designed Soviet reactor (that was designed for enhanced production of weapons material aa well as civilian power) caused it to fail. Fewer than 100 deaths are attributed to that.

    Everyone has heard of the latter but almost no one the former….

    All the nuclear accidents in history have caused far fewer deaths than all other power generation means, including on a deaths per GWh basis not just in absolute terms.

    300

  • #
    PeterS

    Not surprised. I’ve been saying for a long time that if governments are really serious about reducing significantly emissions then nuclear is the only viable way. It’s so obvious I’m still amazed how anyone, apart from the extremists can argue otherwise. Now, will our own PM make the call or will he continue to tell untruths about his commitment to net zero emissions? Also, what about the ALP? Will they too admit that the nuclear option is the only way? I did say a long time ago I wouldn’t rule out the ALP allowing nuclear before the Libs do. It’s amazing how things can change when reality bites. I won’t hold my breath though.

    140

    • #
      David Maddison

      I think its unthinkable that Green Labor will adopt civilian nuclear power and I also think they might cancel the nuclear submarine contract.

      I fully expect Green Labor to shut down Australia’s remaining coal power stations and they might even stop the export of coal, as they already did in Vicdanistan when the Andrews regime cancelled a huge export order from India.

      Labor will probably do what’s been done in Tasmania and have a large number of unseen, unnoticed diesel generators to make up the deficit.

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-31/temporary-diesel-generators-unveilled-meadowbank-power-station/7287076

      113

    • #
      Dennis

      A Prime Minister is the most senior Cabinet Minister and not the sole decision maker. However the Morrison Coalition Government has been actively investigating nuclear modular generators, along with the UK Government generators designed and built by Rolls Royce UK.

      Federal Parliament aside, meaning if the majority of MPs there approved nuclear, the next hurdle is State Governments because they have the planning approval powers, electricity supply also being a State area of responsibility and States sold power stations and transmission lines (privatised most) that were State owned public assets.

      50

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s Lomborg’s latest article in the WSJ and I hope everyone has the time to read it.
    Many links to follow and his group has the maths and economic muscle to properly evaluate the latest REAL WORLD data.
    No doubt about it that Nuclear power could be our salvation, but the use of Nuclear weapons could also be our downfall.
    Yet the Kerry donkey and the UN Sec Gen etc worry about their delusional climate change EXISTENTIAL threat? Unbelievable but true.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/lomborg-be-afraid-of-nuclear-war-not-climate-change/

    180

    • #
      Neville

      Here’s just a small part of Lomborg’s WSJ article above. Just think all this TRILLION $ drama for the last 30+ years over a tiny 4% HIT to future generations but they then also tell us that those future generations will be 434% richer than we are today. THINK ABOUT IT.
      Here’s the quote.
      “What underpins this climate fixation? The false and irresponsible idea that global warming poses an immediate existential risk for the world. Climate change is real and man-made; have no doubt about that.

      But the best economic estimates used by the Obama and Biden administrations, as well as those created by the only climate economist to ever win the Nobel Prize in economics, all show that the total impact of unmitigated climate change—not just on the economy but overall—would be equivalent to less than a 4% hit to global GDP annually by the end of the century.

      The U.N. estimates that the average person in 2100 will be 450% as rich as today. If climate change continues unabated, the average person will be “only” 434% as rich—a far from a catastrophic outcome.

      A world scared witless doesn’t make smart decisions—so it should be no surprise it hasn’t managed to make a dent in climate change.

      Globally, last year saw the most CO2 emissions ever, despite $5 trillion spent over the past decade on climate policies”. END of quote.

      140

  • #
    Ronin

    You would think that if unreliable power could be made reliable, the Japanese would have done it, after all they have succeeded in all other technologies.
    The have no natural resources of their own and they won’t touch their forests, so nuclear makes most sense.

    180

    • #
      David Maddison

      they won’t touch their forests

      Greens / Left would have them chopping down their forests to burn just like they had Drax in Once Great Britain chopping down virgin USA forests and shipping them across the Atlantic.

      140

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    I’ve got nothing against Japan other than wwII. All for nuclear power in Japan just hope they can do better than Fukashima . .

    50

  • #
    Neville

    AGAIN here’s the WIKI graph for all countries’ co2 emissions since 1970.
    NOTE the COMBINED USA + EU emissions are lower today then 1970 or 1990.
    Also NOTE that China, India + “other developing countries” co2 emissions have soared since 1990.
    Note also that China + India have only agreed to PERHAPS reduce co2 emissions after 2060 and 2070. See the Glasgow delusional clown show in 2021.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png

    70

    • #
      Neville

      Perhaps I should’ve said that the “other developing countries” co2 emissions have grown in an almost straight line since 1970 to 2018. See graph.

      70

    • #
      Dennis

      Please explain that to the Solomon Islands leader who leans towards China, much to the annoyance of the opposition and reportedly many citizens.

      50

  • #
    RickWill

    Uranium is a mined resource that takes years to find and develop. The current price hike is refocusing exploration efforts but it is a long pipeline so prices are likely to maintain the current upward trend:
    https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/uranium-price?op=1

    Lithium is also going to see new highs as the economics of BEVs and hybrids gets more attractive against rising gasoline and diesel prices.

    Electric vehicle subsidies in Australia are going up adding to the economic attraction:
    https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/what-electric-vehicle-buyer-incentives-are-offered-around-australia

    New South Wales

    In straight dollar terms, NSW is now certainly in the incentive lead. Just like the ACT, new and used EVs (under $78,000) are exempt from stamp duty.

    In addition to this, the first 25,000 electric vehicles sold under $68,750 attract a $3000 rebate on the purchase price.

    Along with these incentives comes over $170 million to be spent on charging infrastructure within New South Wales.

    50

    • #
      Dennis

      Recent media reports advised that the sales of EV since NSW incentives (and elsewhere the same result) have been poor, apparently apart from company car drivers private ownership sales are very low.

      110

      • #
        Ozwitch

        Yeah, well, we aren’t Europe. If you live outside of a capital city EVs don’t really cut the mustard. I live in a rural area where people travel hundreds of kms just to work or to manage their properties. People tow things, they put cattle in the back of the ute, carry round heavy equipment.

        30

    • #
      David Maddison

      Imagine a technology so unattractive to most Australians that the government has to pay people to buy them and sales are still poor.

      I understand corporate and government sales are OK though.

      And Turnbull kindly gave his friends at Macquarie Leasing $100 million of our hard-earned taxes to encourage the adoption of EV’s, mostly to corporations.

      https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/turnbulls-loselose-electric-car-farce/news-story/02d463990cfc6c4cbf8657c44349fd23

      100

    • #
      Neville

      These tiny, stupid TOXIC EVs are just over priced junk and are useless on a trip or to pull a trailer or caravan or boat etc.
      Much better to buy a much better + RELIABLE, worry free Toyota Corolla or similar sized car at just 50% of the price.

      180

    • #
      Ronin

      It looks like the same situation is occurring as with rooftop solar , those renting, those less financially able, and those who don’t want a bar of ev ownership, will be financing those who can afford/want ev’s, via sales incentives, charging stations and nonpayment of fuel excise tax.

      Research shows you will spend up to 3.5 days of your life waiting to charge your vehicle.

      90

    • #
      David Maddison

      Whenever the government gives away rebates (i.e. taxpayer money) the usual consequence is the base price of the item goes up by whatever the amount of the rebate is.

      90

    • #
      Klem

      Uranium exploration has gone completely berzerk here in Northern Canada.

      00

  • #
    Steve of Cornubia

    Talk about whether each political party would support or oppose nuclear power generation, and how the states might respond, misses a key issue, and a much more important one at that. Public opinion will matter on this issue and the Libs and state governments in particular will be poll-driven – as usual. This means that, if the Libs REALLY want to deploy nuclear tech to fix our energy problem, they should first embark on an effective PR campaign that educates people on the real costs, benefits and risks (plus the costs, benefits and risks of NOT embracing nuclear). Anti-nuclear activists have done a good job of demonising nuclear, to the point where most voters are genuinely scared by it.

    This has to change and that requires education, and honesty. Public opinion must be changed; only then does nuclear power stand any chance of widespread adoption in Australia.

    70

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      G’day Steve,
      ” This has to change and that requires education, and honesty.”

      I guess that rules out Australia for anything nuclear. The “Climate Change” mess shows our education system has failed us in the teaching of adequate science at all levels, and there is little honesty at any level of our decision making or media groups.
      i
      Mr Global has all by the short and curlies.

      Yours in despairing cynicism,
      Dave B

      30

    • #
      Len

      They have already started to advertise Hydrogen using a bright yellow as the background. (Clive’ colour)

      10

    • #
      Serp

      Good luck finding teachers to spin pro nuclear science to their classes.

      10

  • #
    David Maddison

    Japan is sensible.

    According to Wikipedia as of 2020 they “only” have 4.2GW of wind power nameplate.

    This compares to Australiastan that of 2020 had 7.4GW installed and another 4.0GW committed (nameplate only).

    I know nameplate doesn’t reflect the amount of power produced or how useless it is, but sadly, that’s how these things are dishonestly rated by those who earn money from them and the useless idiots that support their owners.

    111

    • #
      Ronin

      I suppose ‘nameplate’ is a start, when their output is so variable, and depends on the wind gods smiling on us.

      20

  • #
    Hanrahan

    Win, lose or draw Russia will not extract itself from Ukraine in a good financial position. Look for a new round of SALT talks where Russia agrees to decommission thousands of warheads [Did anyone mention how expensive they are to maintain?] so they can sell the nuclear fuel [suitably diluted] into the booming nuclear power industry.

    50

  • #
    Neville

    Anthony Watts interviews Dr Benny Peiser of the GWPF about NET ZERO watch and on his current visit to the USA.
    Of course he hopes to be able to warn the US voters about the soaring cost of energy in the EU and what will happen in the USA if they continue to vote for the clueless DEMs in the Nov mid terms.
    Let’s hope the US voters have the brains to allow the Republicans to slow down the Biden donkey + Dems at the end of this year and start to build to the 2024 election.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/30/crisis-soaring-costs-of-energy-in-uk-europe-a-video-interview-with-dr-benny-peiser-of-gwpf/

    50

    • #
      David Maddison

      Not only will USA voters have to smarten up and vote for the sensible candidate, hopefully Trump or DeSantis, but the elections will also have to be free and fair without DemocRAT or Deep State interference.

      100

  • #
    Serge Wright

    The RE transition was always destined to fail. Even 1st year engineering students would easily spot the problems with trying to use weather dependent, low density sources of energy to power a grid. Today, after several $Trillion of colossal spend, largely driven by using taxpayer funds, only around 3% of global energy is derived from wind and solar and 10% still comes from nuclear, despite it’s retreat from the mix over the past 2 decades. China uses coal, makes solar panels and sells them to western countries for large profits, which then causes the industry in the western countries to send more business to China to escape the expensive and intermittent energy. It’s the perfect scam and pushed along by activists that are funded by Russian NGOs, also seeking to kill off western dominance.

    You would think that after 30 years of RE obsession, accompanied by a doubling of global emissions, all coming from the developing countries, that the penny would drop, but alas the green nutters wish to double down on failure and at a time when the western economies are on the edge of collapse. It’s good to see a resurgence of nuclear in Japan and hopefully this will lead to a flow on in logical thing, including down here.

    One point that needs acknowledging though is the energy demand situation as the developing world emerges. It’s on a steep path up and we all need to realise that FF production will not be able to meet demand over the next decade, let alone 30-50 years of continued growth and development. Nuclear energy plus FF is the only way we can come close to meeting demand in the short to medium term and the production of both is needed to increase at break-neck speed if we are to avoid a huge energy crunch. Ultimately, only nuclear fusion can meet all future demands and the focus on that source needs to continue and with increased R&D funding.

    60

  • #

    Hmm! I wonder why Nuclear power generation is so attractive when compared with wind power, and hey, solar power is even less attractive than wind power.

    Those Units firing back up in Japan, six reactors ….. and six GigaWatts.

    Those Units are all driving generators from 850MW up to 1350MW, with one of them 1500+MW. Most are third generation Advanced Units. (APWR and ABWR) These big ‘Nukes’ will operate at a Capacity Factor of around 90%. (and here, keep in mind that the WHOLE of the U.S. fleet of Nukes with a Nameplate of 101GW operate at a CF of 90%+, and virtually all those U.S. nukes are older than 30 years plus now)

    The largest wind plants using the latest technology are around 500MW, and they operate at around 30% CF, with towers now with 5MW units inside the nacelle on top of the pole, more than 100 metres tall.

    So 90% of 6000MW is 5400MW.

    30% of 500MW is 150MW.

    You would need 36 wind plants to generate the equivalent power as ….. what is being delivered from 6 Nuclear reactors.

    Six Nuclear Units ….. 1800 individual wind towers.

    The power from the nukes is on tap 24/7/365 while the power from the wind plants is , well, whenever the wind is blowing eh!

    That’s why nukes are so attractive. They’ll ‘give’ you the power for when you need it.

    Tony.

    220

    • #
      David Maddison

      I think Japan has relatively few windmills because, despite their high population density, they highly value what little nature they have left and they don’t want their environment polluted with bird and bat killing, infrasound and audible sound, and visual polluting windmills which also require large land clearances. And they don’t want to cut down their beloved forests just to make space for useless windmills or solar panels.

      They want compact, extremely low pollution coal, gas and nuclear power plants with proper hydro where feasible for cheap and reliable electricity.

      110

    • #
      Ross

      Simple maths and physics- first year stuff in any engineering degree. Yet, for some reason all the managers and engineers of the Australian grid have for the past 30 years contracted amnesia. There’s a relatively new gas fired power plant at Laverton North in Victoria that is utilised for peaking power. It’s footprint is barely 2.5ha and it resides in a heavily industrialised suburb right next to a freeway. It could produce 320 MW of electricity probably 24/7 via its gas supply. Can even run on diesel if required. The Moorabool wind farm (near Ballan) is rated similarly at 320 MW nameplate and covers about 6600 ha!! How is that land efficient??

      90

  • #
    Honk R Smith

    Net Zero is not a plan, it is a political product.
    Nuclear power was much the same in that it was an attempt to make a ‘good’ out if the development of atomic weapons.
    This revitalization will be the attempt to fix the failed solution to a ‘problem’ that only exists as a political creation in the first place.
    ‘Fossil fuels’, (another political construction), are in truth a natural gift to humanity.

    Wish we could get the Do Gooders to give it a rest for a while.
    The road to Hell is ahead of schedule.

    90

  • #
    Phillip Sweeney

    Huge “Renewables” Failoure in Japan

    FUKUSHIMA — About seven years after the world’s first floating wind turbine was installed off the eastern Japan prefecture of Fukushima, the Japanese government announced its withdrawal from the offshore wind farm, disappointing survivors of the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.

    The turbine, dubbed “Fukushima Mirai (future),” was placed in the Pacific Ocean some 20 kilometers off the town of Naraha in Fukushima Prefecture, and unveiled to media in October 2013, about 2 1/2 years after the quake and tsunami that triggered the meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (now Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc.) It was the first installation of an offshore wind farm that the central government and others were building. As its name indicated, it was seen as a harbinger of Fukushima’s “future” with the introduction of natural, wind-generated energy.

    70

    • #
      RickWill

      This is the last statement I found in this article:
      https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20210305/p2a/00m/0na/034000c

      A local company executive who had anticipated the benefits the wind farm would bring to the region, such as drawing clusters of wind power projects, commented, “We had growing dreams to make the waters off Fukushima represent Japan’s wind farms and to spur the creation of jobs and raise up people with knowledge on wind power generation… But now it’s come to an end with nothing to show for it.”

      Something I learnt about Japanese commercial practice in the 1980s is that they are not inclined to flog a dead horse. If they sold something that did not live up to its warranty, they would only support it to the point where it made money. If it was bound to lose money they were happy to walk away rather then battle to the bitter end where they would surely lose money and their reputation worse than if they had walked away.

      Australian industry is not so commercially focused. The blatant AND hidden subsidising of intermittent generators in Australia masks their lack of commercial viability. Australia is prepared to flog a dead horse because it has the appearance of life.

      100

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    We have the luxury of having great coal to use for a while and can use that period to test and prepare for nuclear powered electricity generation when the cost benefit ratio is better.

    At the moment, coal is clean and lowest cost option.

    150

  • #
    Ronin

    Look at the difference between Canada and Australia, they have 19 reactors, we have none plus a ban on talking about them, Canada is a large, spread out, resource rich country like Australia, why are we so different.

    60

    • #
      David Maddison

      As far as I know, not even Trudeau is opposed to nuclear energy.

      If even Trudeau can be for it, why can’t any Australian politicians with influence?

      It seems Australia is unusually opposed to nuclear energy and I’m not altogether clear why, especially as Australian was actually going to build a nuclear power reactor and actually started building it, at least clearing the site.

      Tenders recalled 1971 by PM McMahon.

      50

      • #
        Klem

        Trudeau has not really expressed an interest in nuclear power, but his Leftist buddies have.

        Nuclear power produces cheap energy, cheap energy is the foundation of prosperity, prosperity is the enemy of the Left.

        I predict Trudeau will not support nuclear power.

        10

    • #
      Dennis

      Why, my understanding is, spans back to the migration of UK Communist Union and anti-Monarch unionists first to the British Colonies here in Australia, and when Federation of States was being discussed those far left union members pushed for a republic instead, mainly based on their hatred for the British Monarchy. Their influence of course continued after Federation and during wartime several times maritime unionists sabotaged the ADF equipment loaded onto ships.

      There is a lot more background history but in short the Communists opposed nuclear because they believed they were helping their Communist government nations comrades. During the 1950s the Labor Party split into two, the Democratic Labor Party members escaping from the far left faction Communist influence.

      And that partly explains both the Greens and Union controlled Labor opposition to uranium and nuclear anything.

      40

  • #
    David Maddison

    Here’s a short under 2 min video from Japan by an English speaker (who sounds Australian) demonstrating the noise from a Japanese wind turbine. No wonder they have such a small uptake in this high population density country.

    https://youtu.be/roQjHWlxDF0

    40

    • #
      Hanrahan

      There’s an old joke of an Irishman being asked directions to some place who replied “If I were you I wouldn’t be starting from here”. Australia should NOT be starting from here but given that we are indeed doing so, Snowy II should help [at a price].

      20

  • #
    RickWill

    The synchronous condensers in SA were commission in Q42021.

    That has reduced the directions to the gas generators in SA from a maximum of 4 to maximum of 2. It is good timing because gas prices have a rocket under them. Overall, gas fuel usage in the NEM in Q42021 was the lowest since 2003.

    Batteries are sourcing an increasing share of FCAS demand, up by 130MW on average. Correspondingly, black coal and gas FCAS are both lower.

    Lots of interesting stuff if you have not scanned the AEMO Q4 report:
    https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/qed/2021/q4-report.pdf?la=en

    Of particular note is that voluntary economic curtailment reached record level. That is despite LGC price continuing to trend up. Without more storage, the NEM has reached its saturation point for intermittents. Very little value left in generation without storage to soak up the excesses.

    30

  • #
    David Maddison

    Very little value left in generation without storage to soak up the excesses.

    How will Snowy Hydro 2 impact that, assuming it is ever finished?

    20

    • #
      b.nice

      Snowy 2 will help the coal fired power stations.

      They won’t have to throttle back as much in low usage periods, and can sell off their excess to Snowy 2.

      Snowy 2 will pump when electricity is cheap, and generate when electricity price is high.

      But the large majority of that pumping electricity will still be from COAL fired power.

      20

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    so when will the next disaster occur?
    So far, we are seeing them every 20 years or so.
    And every time the engineers say, we knew this was a problem, we will fix it next time, but accidents always occur in a new way every time. So the next accident will have a new cause. but it is due soon

    116

    • #
      Hanrahan

      What does the “best fit” line between two points look like? It could be anything or nothing and impossible to extrapolate.

      80

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      sellafield, three mile, Chernobyl,Kyshtym,Fukushima,Enrico Fermi Unit 1,SL-1, my maths gives the answer of 7, your maths may be suspect (a common failing on this site)

      115

      • #
        Hanrahan

        Ah so! You speak of “incidents” as if they were disasters.

        sellafield, three mile, Chernobyl,Kyshtym,Fukushima,Enrico Fermi Unit 1,SL-1,

        What’s the death toll?

        90

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Oh I see, you have to die to have a disaster is that right?

          Then coal mining for coal power are bigger disasters than nuclear (those are just for the USA

          215

          • #
            Hanrahan

            I remember Three Mile Is. The safety systems worked perfectly. How is that a disaster by ANY definition?

            80

          • #
            paul courtney

            Mr. Fitzroy: I wonder if the well-known drawbacks to coal(mining dangerous, dirty; burning dangerous, dirty etc.) were cause for the welcoming of nuclear power after WWII? Good thing your green friends stopped electricity from becoming so cheap, EVs would make sense. You do see the irony?

            20

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          why don’t you just redefine disaster to events that only happen to you.

          216

          • #
            b.nice

            So you don’t name the horrendous pollution in China due to wind turbine material manufacturing, just because its not near you.

            Hypocritically….. you and your fellow “leftists” just ignore it !

            130

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              We are talking about nuclear disasters, not hypothetical wind turbine manufacture in China, but logic, consistency and maths are not your strong suits

              214

              • #
                b.nice

                Yep, I knew you would deny the deliberate ecological disaster of wind turbine manufacturing and installation…

                How else can you manage the cognitive dissonance in your little mind.

                Nothing hypothetical about it.. absolute “fact”.. but you don’t understand that word, do you. !

                Consistency is your only attribute…. consistently WRONG !

                130

              • #
                b.nice

                Oh, and you were the one that tried to add coal mining into your ranting.

                So, according to you, its not just about nuclear… its about energy “disasters”.

                And wind non-energy is a HUGE and DELIBERATE one in every facet of their short existence.

                An ecological and environmental disaster in manufacturing.
                An environmental disaster in their installation.
                And economic disaster in their effect on energy prices.
                And a further environmental and ecological disaster after their short life span.
                And unmitigated disaster from start to finish.

                Hence… Worshiped by the left. !

                130

              • #
                Hanrahan

                If we are talking about nuclear disasters there have only been two.

                10

            • #
              Tel

              How many people died from radiation, or any nuclear-related problem caused by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster?

              How many killed by windmills?

              Oh wait … I remember now, facts and logic not your strong points.

              Oh I see, you have to die to have a disaster is that right?

              Then coal mining for coal power are bigger disasters than nuclear

              Yup, most people do expect that death and disaster might be broadly associated concepts. Your own data, that you linked to, shows coal mining has steadily become safer over the past 50 years and these days does not make it anywhere near the top 10 most dangerous jobs. Most recent year in that list was 2020 and only 5 fatalities listed … still worse than Fukishima but I’ve never heard you wailing about the great dangers of landscape gardening which kills many more people.

              Reading not you strong point either, am I right? You just hoped no one would check the link.

              110

              • #
                b.nice

                Need to remember that coal, oil and gas have built the whole of society that we currently live in.

                Without them there would be nothing. Western civilisation would not exist.

                Coal, oil, gas have given, and continue to give, so much back to community and civilisation.

                All wind does is take subsidies and increase electricity price and destroy electrical stability.

                Wind is like a parasite, feeding on the roots of energy supply and society in general.

                60

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                how many die each year from landscape gardening?

                MAybe this link can help you understand the scale of the problem, particularly for coal

                What I’m saying is that there will be a nuclear disaster (or accident for the squeamish) in the next 5 years, using history as a guide

                112

              • #
                b.nice

                Peter, without coal,oil,gas,.. we would not be here.

                Modern civilisation would not exist.

                Modern civilisation can exist without wind and solar, but it cannot exist without coal, oil and gas.

                That is the “scope of things”, that you seem to be too dumb or myopic to grasp.

                Oh, and put those deaths in your link against the amount of reliable energy that is produced. Do you dare !

                60

              • #
                b.nice

                Gotta love the “is estimated as”, trying to blame non-mining deaths on coal.

                Without that coal, they would be burning dung or nothing, and the death rate would be far higher.

                The numbers are a fabrication
                . And were shown to be so at the time.

                How many people have died in coal mining related accidents in Australia in the last few years

                Please don’t count accidents like where a fool drives his car under a coal truck, that is a Darwin accident, not a mining accident.

                50

              • #
                b.nice

                Coal in Australia produced some 150,000 GWh of electricity in 2020

                How many coal mining deaths ?

                “The number of fatalities occurring in the Australian mining sector last year has fallen with five workers killed till 18th November 2020 according to a Safe Work Australia report. In the same period last year, nine mineworkers lost their lives.”

                And that all mining.

                Can you do the sums. 😉

                40

              • #
                b.nice

                Also, name one person in Australia who has died because of the use of coal.

                20

              • #
                b.nice

                India.. produces close to 1000 TWh of coal fired electricity per year

                Total all mining deaths about 550.

                Where this clown gets 100,000 of deaths per 1000 TWh, caused by coal… is anybodies guess !

                Its purely from fantasy land !

                30

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                so by the ‘logic’ displayed here energy production is built upon the bones of those dead miners. even accepting one death is disgusting.

                012

              • #
                Tel

                how many die each year from landscape gardening?

                If you were as “concerned” as you pretend to be, you could look that up. I looked it up, you couldn’t be bothered.

                MAybe this link can help you understand the scale of the problem, particularly for coal

                Do you ever go and check the links that you throw around? It’s estimated deaths, based on mostly China and India, and based on this: “Air pollution from coal-fired plants has also been of growing concern as it has been linked to asthma, cancer, and heart disease. Burning coal can release toxic airborne pollutants such as mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter.”

                Well, all the Western nations have very tight regulations on filtering to clean up particulate matter, but there’s nothing I can do about what happens in China and India … if you want to start a campaign to improve environmental regulations in those countries then by all means do so but don’t pretend this somehow relates to the topic at hand.

                This of course has nothing whatsoever to do with what happens in Japan, meaning it’s a complete red herring and yet again you prove that logic and reason are not your strong points … if they were then you would not resort to distractions and straw man arguments.

                What I’m saying is that there will be a nuclear disaster (or accident for the squeamish) in the next 5 years, using history as a guide

                And using history as a guide … hardly anyone will die of radiation, which was the point all along. That’s the point you are avoiding … how about you address that and quit the straw man stuff?

                40

              • #
                Tel

                Where this clown gets 100,000 of deaths per 1000 TWh, caused by coal… is anybodies guess !

                Its purely from fantasy land !

                They have a model of respiratory deaths based on fine particulate matter in the air, then they go an measure a coal smoke stack from some place that has no filtering and find some particulate matter coming out of that. Then they calculate a lot of deaths and then project the problem back to Western nations where the particulate filtering is very well developed.

                Look … it’s highly arguable whether particulates really do cause so very many deaths, but in the big picture, yes filtering is a good idea. The point is, that we in the Western world are already doing that, and at any rate it’s completely unrelated to any CO2 (which is not particulate and cannot be filtered) and also unrelated to Greenhouse and not even vaguely connected with nuclear power.

                I’m not supporting hazy, smoky air … because no one wants that, but Australia already has air quality monitoring all around our major power stations … and the air is very clean. I’ve seen photos of Chinese cities, with the haze in the air, but don’t blame me for that, go talk to the CCP! This whole thing is a deliberate and dishonest conflation.

                10

              • #
                b.nice

                Fantasy numbers.. the only thing Peter has. !

                Of course all deaths in mining are not good, but far worse is the incredible malfeasance of the person in your link in multiplying them by a factor of some several thousand just to support a fake agenda.!

                20

    • #
      b.nice

      Never mind the wholesale destruction of huge areas of forest, and other habitats, just for useless, short-lived, only partially-productive wind turbines.

      That is a deliberate disaster.

      70

      • #

        Yes an absolute Enviromental and Financial Disaster planned and executed by ignorant Green policies.

        PF seems to be in favour of destroying the landscape, mining of rare earths by child labour, maximum 15 – 20 years lifetime with only a 30% capacity factor power generation then having to leave the concrete steel reinforced base in the ground and burying the 90 m fan blades in the earth since there is no means to recycle them. All subsidised by the taxpayer who deliver money to the developers and operators with nothing going back to the taxpayer at the end.

        Then is all has to be repeated – what a TOTAL DISASTER in all respects.

        50

    • #
      Ronin

      My money is on 3 Gorges Dam.

      40

      • #
        b.nice

        Yep.. I’m not convinced about its long term stability, either.

        Would certainly be an enormous disaster if it does fail !

        Would dwarf anything else I can think of at the moment.

        20

    • #
      Serp

      Brilliant performance Peter Fitzroy; set the top spinning, whip it seven times or more and it appears to keep you amply entertained for several hours. I dips me lid.

      10

  • #
    dai davies

    As I’ve been pointing out for years:

    There
    is
    no
    basis
    in
    physics
    for
    a
    significant
    Greenhouse Effect!

    This may seem like an extreme statement but up till the last time I looked, and challenged others to prove me wrong, there was only one published paper on the subject and it presented calculations which showed the GHE to be less than 1% of the assumed 33C (Nahle, 2011, Biology Cabinet Online), so negligible.

    My calculations agree. It’s quite simple undergrad physics and a spreadsheet is all that’s needed. I used to provide links to the details but my website was de-hosted along with other actions to shut me up. (Titter blocked, PayPirates raiding my bank account, …).

    To emphasise the point, I’m not saying I disagree with the arguments supporting a significant GHE. I’m saying there have never been any presented. All that I get thrown at me are selections of the many papers with spectroscopic measurements that show it exists. These provide measurements in watts/m^2 – gaps in the thermal radiation spectra demonstrating absorption by CO2. This isn’t disputed.

    The GHE is a temperature effect which depends on the time it takes for heat to pass from the Earth’s surface to space. My favoured analogy is people arriving at some venue (say 1 per min), staying for a while (say 30 min) then leaving. The average occupancy of the venue will be 30 people. Back to GHE, the longer the delay, the greater the temperature build-up in the atmosphere.

    As I see the politics, this has been going on so long that everyone is rusted in to their favourite arguments. The soft option of “it’s not really serious yet and we have time” seems to be a standard opposition view, but this still accepts the need for reducing CO2, so now that the extremists have lost credibility it has become the main problem.

    This situation can be resolved by merely asking for the science – challenging physicists to provide solid evidence.

    I have suggested a basic method for measuring the GHE. Why has this never been done, or reported?

    60

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      Note quite accurate, a GHG molecule absorbs a photon, and then re-emits that photon. However, the direction of this re-emission is random, some times up, or sometimes down, or sideways etc. the net effect is that the proportion that are reflected back towards the surface case the warming. Add more GHG’s and you can expect more warming. Note: the energy of the photons arriving is much higher than the energy of those photons which leave.

      you could enter this phrase into your search engine,”How do greenhouse gases work in the atmosphere?”, and read any of the articles it returns for the full science (which is settled and uncontroversial) behind this effect

      011

      • #
        b.nice

        Utter rubbish yet again.. preaching an anti-science mantra you have zero clue about.

        If there is an increase downwards, here is the same increase upwards.. net result = ZERO

        What actually happens is that the tiny amount absorbed by CO2 is passed to the rest of the atmosphere and excluded through the atmospheric window.

        This has been proven by actual measurements.

        There is no scientifically valid way in which CO2 can warm a gravity controlled atmosphere.

        Anyway, net radiative transfer is a product of temperature difference and CO2 does not alter the temperature gradient.. period.

        Basic physics says you are clueless, as usual… and so are the people telling you what to say.

        20

      • #
        b.nice

        Basic Physics, says NO !

        Net radiative transfer in the atmosphere is a PRODUCT of temperature differences. Basic thermodynamics.

        To get a change in radiative transfer, you have to change the gravity based temperature gradient.

        CO2 has no effect on this temperature gradient whatsoever… so cannot lead to a change in radiative transfer.

        10

      • #
        dai davies

        That’s the standard hand-waving explanation, and your search will get countless variations of that, but it’s wrong! You can’t get a temperature from that without tracking the passage of heat right up through the atmosphere. It’s too vague to apply physics to, but I did use this back radiation to get an estimate of molecular absorption and emission coefficients so these measurements aren’t totally useless.

        What you are describing is the near-surface air coming towards thermal equilibrium with the surface as thermodynamics shows us it must. It can be said to slightly raise the effective emission level by about 100m.

        It’s how long the heat is held (or “trapped”) in the atmosphere before escaping to space that matters. Think carefully about the analogy I gave starting from an empty venue.

        30

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Wong.

        30

      • #

        #
        Peter Fitzroy
        April 2, 2022 at 5:23 pm · Reply
        Note quite accurate, a GHG molecule absorbs a photon, and then ………..
        e

        Ahh ! , Peter you poor gullible fool !……

        30

    • #
      Giles Playfair

      If anyone has the time here is a terrific lecture by physicist Denis Rancourt on The science and geopolitics of climate change that directly goes to this and is a lot of fun. Apologies if Rancourt has been linked before but I thought it worth mentioning again.
      And part 2 here.
      And his short paper on the topic here.
      And his calculations here.

      30

      • #
        Giles Playfair

        For some context I should have pointed out that Rancourt, through his calculations, shows that even if you DOUBLE, repeat double, atmospheric CO2 you only get around 1.4 degrees of warming. He says land use is far more reactive in the equations than CO2 and is therefore far more concerning.

        00

      • #
        b.nice

        “you only get around 1.4 degrees of warming.”

        Another luke-warmist ignore the basic physics of energy transfer.

        Net radiative transfer of energy in the atmosphere is governed by temperature differences.

        Temperature differences upwards through the atmosphere are governed by the gravity based thermal gradient

        Only H2O has the ability to modify that temperature gradient. CO2 does not.

        10

    • #
      TdeF

      CO2 producing significant warming is not the first proposition in the long chain which alleges man made CO2 driven global warming. The first is man made CO2. Because if it is not man made, if we do not control CO2 levels, there is nothing we can do whether warming occurs or not and regardless of whether increased CO2 is a problem.

      Man made CO2 is fake. CO2 is rapidly absorbed in the vast oceans simply because it is 30x as soluble as oxygen which we know is rapidly absorbed as fish breathe. What that means is that CO2 levels are set by ocean surface temperature, a simple consequence of Henry’s law. And we can prove the extra CO2 is all modern because it has C14 which is totally missing from fossil fuel with a half life of 5400 years. The oceans are a near infinite reserve of CO2 because it is not only so soluble, it is highly compressible as we also know from champagne, soda water,lemonade. CO2 is very useful and the essence of life. Even mushrooms breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2 and can drown. Fish also drown if there is not enough O2. All living things are made from CO2 and H2O almost entirely.

      However the argument has moved on from Global Warming, which has been abandoned. Even Climate Change has been abandoned, polar bears, sinking cities, the lot. Yesterday’s stories.

      The ONLY story now is NETT ZERO, a most insidious and scientifically wrong idea which seems to appeal to politicians, businessmen and misinformed children. So if you burn a tree, you grow a tree. Except that in the last 40 years CO2 has increased 15% and Green cover has also increased 15%, which means even the planet disagrees. CO2 growth is not stopped even a little by a massive increase in green cover which we can see from satellites.

      So it is all science free propaganda for windmills, solar panels. And Nett Zero is the Holy Grail of utter stupidity.

      The world has spent the entire GDP of the United States on vast solar panels and windmill farms and wood pellets and tide power and hot rocks with no effect at all on either CO2 or the weather.

      So what’s the answer? In the UK, “Thousands more windmills to treble onshore wind power“. And in Japan, Nuclear.

      Why would anyone treble the number of windtowers without checking that they work even a little to reduce CO2? Nothing has changed the upward steady trajectory of CO2, but no one actually cares. Because Nett Zero is fake news.

      60

      • #
        TdeF

        I mean, what is the world going to do about the extra 7 billion people since 1865? How can you nett zero away 7 billion people? And why isn’t CO2 vastly higher than it is, rising only 50% in 170 years? And almost in a straight line, unlike the human population in the same time?

        Nett Zero is a phrase invented as Climate Scientology evoking the mysteries of accounting and double entry journals. But the invented language of Dianetics, Thetan, E-Meter, Engram have met their match in Nett Zero, a most holy phrase invented by the UN church of Climate Change, a political body. And successful self appointed Climate guardians like dead wombat specialist Professor Tim Flannery and Tobacco heir Al Gore.

        Personally, I expect the Japanese have just given up on fossil fuels. And in a nuclear world, they may have other plans with China looking so intently at the old Japanese island of Formosa.

        20

    • #
      RickWill

      GHE is a belief. Anyone is entitled to a their belief.

      However the GHE has no association with Earth’s energy balance. The energy balance is set by two ocean surface temperature regulating processes. The upper limit in open ocean over any annual average is 30C. The lower ocean water surface temperature is -1.8C. The upper limit controls the energy uptake and the lower limit controls the energy loss.

      Earth’s climate trends are driven by orbital mechanics. Precession is the dominant trend in millennia scale changes like glaciation. Earth is now 500 years into the next cycle of glaciation but it is early days and ice accumulation peaks in this cycle in 10,000 years. If the previous 4 cycles are followed, the sea level will not fully recover in the next melt phase of the precession cycle and the following two cycles will transfer more water to land until the dust is bad enough to change the snow EMR absorption.

      The only eras when open ocean surface water exceeded 30C has been when atmospheric mass has been substantially higher than present.

      00

  • #
    Philip

    Why would Australia consider it when we sit on enormous coal reserves and only have a small population ? But it seems co2 is bad, nearly everyone believes that now so we will go nuclear eventually it seems.

    After the floods in northern NSW nearly every farmer I know around here is convinced of climate change. It seems this is the event that has tipped them into belief. “You just get big floods every 3 years now” I heard said this morning. How short their memories are when 3 years ago they were all saying the drought is the new normal.

    Farmers are by default negative thinkers so I suppose their minds are always up for grabs with a bit of fear thrown about. Very disappointing though. You’d think they’d have more sense. My father – a lifelong farmer – would be rolling in his grave, he was one of the good old ones who didn’t buy into BS.

    110

    • #
      Dennis

      One good reason, but I am not disagreeing with you about coal reserves and therefore not really needing nuclear, would be to use our coal to produce transport fuel, a couple of trail ventures could not get the backing they required from State Governments and Environmental Protection Agencies, and other approval sources, to risk investing in high volume production.

      Similar reasons that resulted in oil refineries, only two operating now and the Federal Government is doing all they can to encourage them to continue and increase production, closing down in Australia.

      30

    • #
      Dennis

      A friend recently commented to me that too many people are like Horses, easily spooked, herd mentality.

      50

  • #
    Peter

    Also keep an eye on South Korea. Its president-elect has said that he wants to bring more nuclear into the mix:
    https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2022/03/419_325939.html

    60

  • #
    David Maddison

    I have zero confidence that Australia will have a rational energy policy anyone soon, if at all.

    All major political parties and their politicians are staggeringly clueless.

    70

  • #
    Rick

    As with everything these days, it’s all politics and it’s all bullshit.

    60

  • #
    Steve of Cornubia

    In the course of following my interest in Ukraine, I happened to find myself exploring Chernobyl, via Google Streetview (yes, there is quite a bit of coverage). Amazingly, it appears that there was (prior to the war) quite a lot of activity on site. There is an occupied office block. There is a staff canteen. Buses can be seen driving through the site and tourist groups are here and there, clicking away. The reactor is now encased in what I assume to be an impervious construction. I knew that the site wasn’t as contaminated as many said it was, but I was nevertheless surprised to see so many people on site and so much activity, especially tourism. I would love to go there myself.

    I then sought the internet’s view. Of course the left (anti nuclear) more or less controls the internet and our information sources, so it came as little surprise to read on National Geographic (2019) that, “More than 30 years on, scientists estimate the zone around the former plant will not be habitable for up to 20,000 years.”

    20

  • #
    Klem

    France has 55 nuclear power plants spread over an area less than NSW. Every one of them is vulnerable to terrorist attack or war. France is a sitting duck.

    Its only a matter of time. Just saying.

    00

  • #
    Honk R Smith

    “More than 30 years on, scientists estimate the zone around the former plant will not be habitable for up to 20,000 years.”

    Behold, the Priest of Science speak.
    Isn’t there a cadre of babushkas that returned shortly after and refused relocation.?
    The wolves, the catfish, and all the other wildlife appear to be unaware of ‘science’.
    Sea life thrives in Bikini atoll.
    (Not saying, radiation is good, just that the statement is not quite accurate.)
    The term ‘nature’ is shorthand for renewable and sustainable.
    The only thing I see being being ‘sequestered’ is common sense and reality.
    Maybe a future life form will mine ‘sequestered’ reality, and Tartarian civilization will be reborn.
    🙂

    10

  • #
    Richard+Ilfeld

    I tend to think most things are simpler than we make them.
    As a rule of thumb, the person introducing the most complication has the poorest argument.
    If you live on an island, you tend, over time, to learn about boats, and fishing.
    If you live on an island without natural forms of energy, and you are an international manufacturing power, and a first world society,
    the same need-induced pragmatism applies.
    Safety failures teach pragmatic people lessons, not quasi-religious constraints.
    Very much like putting out to sea and fishing even after part of the fleet is lost in a hurricane.

    I think most societies will snap back from those trying to remake millennia old practices with proven evolutionary value.

    10

  • #
    CHRIS

    I am neutral on nuclear energy. Sure, it is cleaner WRT to CO2. However, in no way would I build a nuclear plant in Japan, or any other country which is subject to major earthquakes. Also…nuclear is NOT RENEWABLE. Yes, it would produce enough energy to maintain our way of life…but for how long?? And I am suspicious of how nuclear waste is going to be managed. Result: Nuclear power is NOT the answer for the world’s future.

    00

    • #
      Tel

      How about Gunkanjima Island?

      https://www.japan-guide.com/e/e4414.html

      It’s off the coast far enough that it doesn’t threaten population centers, it’s already industrial and could easily be fixed up with new buildings. There’s a disused coal mine underneath and they could refit that to have the reactor mostly underground.

      Running an underwater cable to Nagasaki would not be difficult.

      As for how long the nuclear fuel would last, when you look at what the French are doing with fuel recycling and then consider that at some stage Thorium will be used at least as a partial fuel source … I’d say it will last as long as the foreseeable future.

      10