Nuclear power: yes or no?

[Wusti]

Sorry, Wusti, I find your arguments utterly ludicrous. But thank you, you have helped form what had been a mere assumption that Australia can be usefully measured by the same per capita standards as everyone else into a firm and fully informed opinion. It has been a productive discussion.

Right back at you Octavious. I haven't seen a fact based argument from you, only opinion, so I'll give your dissertation the weight it deserves.

[Octavious]

Come on, Wusti. Almost your entire argument is built on the premise that what people choose to do isn't actually a choice. Arguing against that is like trying to argue against someone who claims that the sun isn't hot. I've given you the opportunity to present some figures to back up your shipping argument, which you have declined to do. Fair enough, there's no obligation for you to do so, but you have surrendered the opportunity to make a persuasive point out of it and when the prevailing opinion is against you that seems an odd choice.

[Wusti]

Hang on, its easy to fact check my assertion that transport and shipping is not negligible, and cited it as the third largest contributor to Australian emissions. Are you saying unless I provide a link to substantiate that, you consider it invalid? If you go further to state that I am running against prevailing opinion, and yet none of these opinions cite sources either. In fact when I did provide links they were summarily ignored.

Here is one (there are many more all citing around the 20% mark - including ones which demonstrate a direct association between size of Australian state and transport emissions per capita):

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=1500w

Data is a little old but here is the one showing correlation between state size in area and transport costs:

https://535485.smushcdn.com/2232832/wp- ... p=0&webp=1

I can get you more to sustain each of my claims if you like - but that's kind of missing the point.

Group-think doesn't make a thing right, and what's wrong with a dissenting opinion, that people have to take unsubstantiated cracks at me? Argue and demonstrate your point and you'll find me very open-minded.

Call me ornery, but I think challenging group-think is a worthwhile pursuit and helps hone (and occasionally change) competing viewpoints and their articulation. I mean hell I agree with a lot of what some people have said on this thread - but why the hell shouldn't I challenge the questionable bits?

[Octavious]

No one talked about emissions from shipping being negligible, so let's not feed that particular straw man. What I asked is if you can show me some figures demonstrating the impact of shipping on the per capita emissions of an Australian and how it is significantly worse than that for Americans and Europeans. Can you do that? It doesn't have to be a peer reviewed journal or anything. Just something with some basis in reality

[Wusti]

No one talked about emissions from shipping being negligible, so let's not feed that particular straw man. What I asked is if you can show me some figures demonstrating the impact of shipping on the per capita emissions of an Australian and how it is significantly worse than that for Americans and Europeans.

You did in a prior post - as an opinion or assumption rather than disagreement grounded in fact.

I have given you both the Australian breakdown and the correlating basis for my argument that the per capita carbon emissions are higher in sparsely populated, large land areas. It is clear that in the smaller land area states, with higher populations, per capita emissions from transport and shipping are declining, but this is being offset by correspondingly larger growth is large land area states (NT, WA, QLD) resulting in overall growth.

Am I missing something?

[Octavious]

You did in a prior post - as an opinion or assumption rather than disagreement grounded in fact.

Nope.

Am I missing something?

The answer to my question. Like I say, there's no obligation to provide one. However let's not pretend that those 2 links in any way answers the question. At a bear minimum there must be some quantification of shipping carbon emissions and an attempt at an international comparison. What you have has provided a percentage figure for Australian transport emissions without any comparison (although from memory it seems if anything rather low) and some graph of regional Australian transport emissions with zero analysis that can be interpreted in countless different ways

[Wusti]

OK Octavious, whatever. No one else has provided evidence for any of their claims, but whatever I provide will be hatcheted. I'm not diving down this rabbit hole. When you provide me evidence that I am wrong I will respond. Otherwise you're still just another groupthink opinion.

[Octavious]

Hatcheted? Why on earth do you think I'd want to do that? All I'm really saying is that in order to convince me that Australia is fundamentally different to the USA or Europe your argument has to at least consider the USA and Europe. Saying I'm taller than Steve because I'm 9 links high is all well and good, but to be convincing it's useful to demonstrate that I also know how high Steve is, and it also helps to explain how long a link happens to be.

[MajorMitchell]

One thing which I will agree with Wusti on is the distances we drive in Australia vis a vis Europe. I've just done a 200km round trip from Flyblown Gully by the Sea to Adelaide for Christmas lunch, then visited a friend in the suburban sprawl, back to Flyblown Gully by the Sea.
When I worked for Fujitsu in Melbourne as a senior ATM technician I leased a Holden VT series station wagon with cargo barrier for work use. So the rear seats were permanently down & 3 quarters of car for parts & tools, front passenger seat the mobile office. With trips back to Flyblown Gully by the Sea every 6~8weeks, so six to eight per year, 80,000+ km per year, I put 250,000 km on it in three years. That was above average for a company lease vehicle.
Our use of diesel for heavy road haulage has to change & will.

What I disagree with Wusti on is that although there are differing unique circumstances that mean there isn't perfect equity when using per capita based statistical comparisons, his "this means all per capita based statistical comparisons are useless " deduction.
That's a non sequitur, it makes no sense in my opinion.
The more rational deduction is that per capita statistical comparisons are better than non per capita based comparisons, and although they are imperfect (welcome to the real world), they are still extremely useful, which is why they are used.

[Wusti]

MM, the point I have been trying to make is that there is inherent bias in any benchmark you try to use. Per capita is no more valid than absolute measures - is is actually just a lever to use for political purposes. I'm actually fine with that, until people demand the use of Nuclear fission to substitute for fossil fuels, whilst citing per capita emissions as the reason why we simply must build nuclear reactors (using Uranium) in Australia right NOW!

[flash2015]

Using nuclear power in Australia is pure fantasy. Australians are some of the worst NIMBYs on the planet. No-one will want this near them AT ALL. Just look at the fight that went on with Sydney airport. It took almost 50 years to break ground on it (it was originally proposed in 1973). I remember the Bondi locals blocking a train link to the beach only because they didn't want the great unwashed to have access.

While Australia is a massive country, it is very dry. Nuclear relies on a reliable water source. Likely you would need to put it on the coastline somewhere so that it can use seawater for cooling. Where specifically would you put it? You can't just say Australia is big and wave hands. If it isn't the NIMBYs which will stop this it will be the environmentalists (or NIMBYs claiming they are environmentalists)...guaranteed they will tie any proposals for years, if not decades.

If someone asked me which would come first - a permanent human settlement on Mars or a nuclear reactor in Australia...I would go with the Mars settlement.

[Wusti]

Using nuclear power in Australia is pure fantasy. Australians are some of the worst NIMBYs on the planet. No-one will want this near them AT ALL. Just look at the fight that went on with Sydney airport. It took almost 50 years to break ground on it (it was originally proposed in 1973). I remember the Bondi locals blocking a train link to the beach only because they didn't want the great unwashed to have access.

While Australia is a massive country, it is very dry. Nuclear relies on a reliable water source. Likely you would need to put it on the coastline somewhere so that it can use seawater for cooling. Where specifically would you put it? You can't just say Australia is big and wave hands. If it isn't the NIMBYs which will stop this it will be the environmentalists (or NIMBYs claiming they are environmentalists)...guaranteed they will tie any proposals for years, if not decades.

If someone asked me which would come first - a permanent human settlement on Mars or a nuclear reactor in Australia...I would go with the Mars settlement.

I agree with this almost 100%. There is no doubt the NIMBY element is huge, but that's not the end of the story. If we won't accept Nuclear energy in this country, then we simply must pursue alternatives at speed. Renewables, and efficient storage and despatch mechanism research, development and commercialisation must be our top priority to achieve meaningful impacts on global warming. All those 1 or 2% change items will add up - not least the seaweed feed additive that drastically reduces methane emissions from livestock, as well cessation of rampant land clearing.

If we aren't going nuclear we absolutely have to go hard on everything else.

[flash2015]

The whole premise of the thread is wrong, that we need nuclear for "base load".

The concept of having "base load" power stations running at full-tilt 24/7 is dead. In a world of renewables (especially when we are looking a decade plus into the future) the idea that new power stations can come online assuming they can be on 24/7 doesn't fly.

We need power that can scale up/scale down quickly, that can be economically viable when only selling power to the network for part of the day. This is a big reason why NG has been so popular because it can be scaled up and down quickly while coal/nuclear traditionally cannot be. An interesting article here states it is possible for nuclear to work in non-baseload environments. Can it still be profitable in this environment?:

https://www.powermag.com/flexible-opera ... -ramps-up/

The same should apply for renewables of course. We should 100% stop subsidizing solar which isn't backed by a battery. We should be moving towards ToD pricing for electricity...and get rid of guaranteed feed in tariffs.

A slowly increasing carbon tax is good policy. It is technology neutral, it doesn't pick winners and it can provide certainty for business going forward. It is far preferable to the emissions trading nonsense which has just been another plaything for the financial sector. It is unfortunate that Abbott was so successful with his campaign against it.

[Wusti]

Also just for you MM and Kestas - the Australian Governments own projections of changes to our energy mix out to 2030 with 69% provided by renewables.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/renewables- ... ions-show/

Yeah that shit won't work...

[MajorMitchell]

How to be misrepresented. Take an ambivalent position in the middle ground of a debate like this.
Apparently I don't support renewable energy technologies and only support nuclear power. Who knew?

[MajorMitchell]

I read a lot of dumb stuff and false propaganda from the climate change deniers, but clearly the proponents of alternative energy, renewable energy are not immune from similar behaviours

[Wusti]

I read a lot of dumb stuff and false propaganda from the climate change deniers, but clearly the proponents of alternative energy, renewable energy are not immune from similar behaviours

Yet it's odd isn't it? Some people cite no sources at all, ramble endlessly, and moralise - then throw stones. Forums are funny places like that.

[Octavious]

Whereas some people keep on repeating the same lies over and over again, eh Wusti?

[flash2015]

I believe Wustl is right to claim that Australia has some unique challenges in regards to decarbonization in regards to distances and resources (e.g. water)...which you can't just ignore. You can't waive a magic want to change Sydney (population density 442 people per km) into London (population density 5701 people per km).

However Australia does have some advantages too. With its temperate climate it has few worries about heating compared to Europe or North America. Heating is a big deal. You can survive without air conditioning...but you can't survive without heating, especially when the outside temperature drops below freezing for extended periods of time. Counting everything, 37% of the UK's carbon emissions come from heating in some form:

https://es.catapult.org.uk/guide/decarbonisation-heat/

For Germany, 18% of emissions are for heating water in residences:

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/ge ... think-tank

In comparison, in 2019 around 19% of Australia's emissions were related to transportation:

https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2020/trans ... ssions.php

So I don't believe Australia deserves a pass for emissions. It should be able to cut per capita emissions just like everyone else.

[Octavious]

No one claimed that Australia doesn't have challenges that differ from other nations. What Wusti has been repeatedly lying about is his nonsense claim that I said shipping has negligible carbon emissions.

Where Wusti is simply wrong is in this

In a sparsely populated, but massive country like Australia, per capita emissions is grossly unfair, because the geography and size means that Australia should be expected to have higher per capita emissions than both the US and UK, where everything else is equal (higher transport costs, higher agrarian % of GDP).

And yet even the most casual glance at international emissions statistics (which I repeatedly encouraged Wusti to do) demonstrate that Australia has lower per capita carbon emissions than the USA for transport, and that Australia has no higher percentage of emissions attributed to transport than either the UK or the USA. Indeed, the statistics I've seen suggests that it is significantly lower.