In response to your energy correspondent in Issue 496 – the laws of nature transcend the laws of any parliament.
At the present level of technology only gas and nuclear fission (other than coal) can provide reliable electricity 24/7, 365 days.
They are independent of the weather.
This is borne out by world experience (for instance the Spanish apagón).
Modelling is notoriously unreliable and the bias of the modeller comes into play.
Look at Snowy 2.0, its estimate has blown out from $2B to over $12B.
Real world experience is far more reliable than modelling by CSIRO or anyone else.
Germany and Denmark, with large percentages of renewables in the EU, also have the highest prices.
When German renewables do not work, Germany buys electricity from nuclear France.
This shows both the unreliability of renewables and their higher cost.
This is real world observation.
Countries can choose whatever electricity generation methods they like, but if they want reliable non-dependency on the weather and lesser cost, either gas or nuclear need to be in the grid mix.
It has been pointed out that there is no immaculate solution to our energy needs (as evidenced by the problems of permanent disposal of nuclear waste, the emissions from gas and the cost and unreliability of renewables).
No parliamentary majority nor arbitrary targets can change that.
The way forward is with well-directed and well-funded R&D, not baseless ideology.
An inconvenient truth is that the world is still dependent on coal. CO2 readings at Mauna Loa have now reached 430 parts per million, the highest ever recorded and still increasing.
Email, Jul 24
Charles Hemmings, Woy Woy
It is an inconvenient truth indeed, Charles Hemmings- 430 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, and the proportion keeps growing. This is assuming the proportions of an existential threat to civilization as we have come to view it. China has recently reached peak CO2 emissions, even while keeping coal in the mix for energy production. This had been achieved through China’s intense focus on electrification and renewables. Has China assumed the rôle of leadership in addressing the greatest threat this and the next generation of young people face to a secure future? Trump’s America has abrogated any such rôle, and the world is awakening to this political, moral and strategic shift. I didn’t vote for it recently, frankly, but I do get the sense that the Albanese government has its finger on the pulse of history in this regard. Will Australian voters relegate this latter-day opposition to a curious footnote of history?
As I understand it, the main plan of moving towards net-zero would look like this:
– Build LOTS of renewables & batteries/hydro
– Phase out coal plants, using gas to supplement renewables
– Long term, nuclear could be built to supplement gas
The first stage of that plan is the most important: build renewables, build batteries/hydro, and build them quickly. Nuclear and gas certainly do have a role in our future, but not nearly as much as solar and wind
Wind farms and outback solar panel built on farm land or needing to have transmission lines draped across farm land will harm the environment in the long run. Most of them will have a life span of about 10 years. Meanwhile China, India and a host of other countries are building stacks of new coal fired power stations. Makes no sense to me.p