Australia’s New Prime Minister Will Take a Rational Stance on Climate Change
Here’s good news for all you people with lungs. Australia has ousted Tony Abbott (pictured), its extreme right-wing prime minister, and replaced him with Malcolm Turnbull, a gentleman known to be much more in tune with a variety of social issues; he’s a man who is likely to help his country join the 21st Century and work to address our planet’s environmental challenges.
This is a good change in so many ways; most obviously, it’s one fewer fossil fuel puppet / climate change denier at the helm of an important nation. But here’s another way to look at it: it’s less cognitive dissonance (“mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time”) for people all around the globe, who have been wondering how in blazes a country that’s home to so many fun-loving and fair-minded people wound up being led by such a repulsive, hateful reactionary. We’ll probably never know, but now the point is moot; now we can stop speculating, and breathe a little more easily—both figuratively and literally.
It is my hope that with new leadership will come new and more climate friendly policy, but the proof will be in the policy persued in the coming months and years.
I’m with you. To be honest, I’m not sure the new guy will be the fix we need, but he couldn’t be any worse than Abbott.
Actually, the proof will be in the RESULTS of the policies pursued in the coming months and years, especially 30 and more years from now. My fear is that billions of dollars will be spent before it is recognized that most of the money has been wasted on technologies which will not do the job before it becomes politically possible to change course and begin to implement technologies which will actually provide us with enough power without emitting CO2.
There is no doubt that technology will improve over time. But regardless of what happens 30 years hence, it won’t be correct to call out current efforts “wasted.”
Current efforts will be wasted if they prove ineffective after delaying implementing effective technologies until we are in serious trouble.
I see what you’re saying, but consider that there already more than 300 GW of wind energy installed, busily offsetting fossil fuels “as we speak.”
But how can an INTERMITTENT source of power provide 90% of the CO2-free power the world needs, including power for heating, cooling, cooking, lighting, transportation, sea water desalination, and manufacturing? As poor nations strive to lift their people out of poverty, global demand for power, including for all the above purposes, will probably increase by about FOUR TIMES even with improved efficiency, and about 90% of that power must be CO2-free. Except four countries which are fortunate to have considerable hydro power available, it is unlikely that that can be done without nuclear power.
Craig,
It’s of little value creating vast amounts of energy at taxpayer expense, if that energy has no practical value. Creating energy statistic’s to satisfy political ideology, will never achieve any practical goal and will prove useless.
It’s also hypocritical. As Germany has discovered to it’s cost. Boasting about the vast amounts of “green energy ” created is disingenuous. It may help elect leftist populist politicians, but reality is being to dawn that most of this energy is not only wasted, but actually counter-productive.
Germany which once exported energy, now imports energy from countries with coal and nuclear capacity. Far from being green and economically beneficial, Germany is has an energy shortage, and historically high prices.
marcopolo,
Your post is very realistic.
Other than countries which have vast amounts of hydroelectric power available, I know of no country that gets most of its power from renewable sources. Where solar and wind play a large rôle, there are times when so much power is available that there is no use for it and other times when there is insufficient wind and solar power thereby forcing reliance on other sources of power.
In Fiji, solar power has proven to be of great benefit to numerous remote villages where connecting to the grid would not be practical. It has greatly improved the quality of life of many people. That is especially true on remote islands. But as a major source of power for large industrialized nations which lack large amounts of hydro power, it looks as though nuclear power is absolutely essential to curb CO2 emissions.
Unfortunately the new leader Malcolm Turnbull still leads a party full of climate deniers and he had to make a number of compromising promises to get the job. But anything is better than the incompetence of Tony Abbot.
I know Malcolm wants to do the right thing by climate and energy but I will be surprised if he gets the opportunity to do so.
Just an aside. The conservatives got elected as the more left wing major party kept spilling and chucking out its leader. Looks like they can’t say they’re any different now.
That’s sad, but thanks for the update.
Craig,
It must be possible to disagree with one another beliefs or policies, without reviling the individual who may be quite sincere. Tony Abbott is not a “repulsive, hateful reactionary” , he maybe a conservative, but he is a man who deeply cares about his fellow Australian and is very conscious about responsibility and accountability.
He believes in public service being a matter of duty to the best interests of all citizens, not just seeking popularity.
As I say, he may not be the politician of my choice, but I see no reason to revile him personally. ( The old expression “hate the sin, not the sinner ” comes to mind).
That’s a fair comment. I need to be more enlightened in that regard.
Surely Tony Abbot is better than Pauline Hanson.
Please tell us about Pauline Hanson.
Here’s a link to information about the Australian politician, Pauline Hanson; the portion about her political career is the interesting part:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson
Fair-minded people strongly opposed her.
Mark,
Australian governments are usually elected because of support for the policies they espouse. Populist politicians (usually from the left) often arise with popular policies that are enthusiastically endorsed by the electorate until the policies fail and in the following disillusion, the politicians are replaced by those with less radical policies.
You are quite correct when you say the Liberals have now fallen prey to the same problem as beset the Labour party. The abandonment of principle, hardly raises the image of parliamentarians in the opinion of the electorate.
The electorate with support unpopular politicians, and even unpopular policies as long as they believe in the sincerity and integrity of the politician and the need for those policies.
The disastrous years of the Labour/green government has seen all the policies once held so dear to the heart of the Labour party, abandoned in a bid for office, like wise the liberals to fright at the prospects of a narrow (but principled) win and are now attempting to win with a leader whose main appeal is he’s a hypocrite, but a more polished hypocrite than the Labour hypocrite !
Bizarre.
Fortunately, in the UK the Conservative party government were more disciplined and courageously stuck with unpopular, but respected, policies and leader, confounded the polls and won a very convincing victory.
The Labour Party has responded by electing a leader with integrity and policies that make Labour completely impossible to ever win an election, but are at least honestly held.
Whatever the obstacles before him, he offers improved possibilities compared to the man he replaced.
Craig,
You do a great disservice to the former Australian Prime Minister , Tony Abbot, Possibly, because you don’t fully understand the mechanisms of the Westminster style of government.
Tony Abbot was not replace by the Australian people, but by a former party leader in a Party room coup. Those members of the party who voted against him as leader, did not do so because they disagreed with his policies, integrity, or principles, but because the felt their candidate would save more seats in the forthcoming election as he is a better and more popular TV performer. The supporters of the new PM, were MP’s who had won their seats in the election victory achieved by Tony Abbot, but were unlikely to retain those seats as the government measures economic measures became unpopular in marginal seats.
Tony Abbott gained much was never a popular figure, but the nation had accepted his policies were essential for national survival, and were endorsed in the general election. He was unseated by members of his own party, not on any points of principle, but on self-interest. A victory of style over substance.
But the Abbot policies remain in force, the new Australian PM is the beneficiary of his predecessor’s tough policies, and is believed by many to be a better “salesman ” of those policies.
I fail to understand your rejoicing to see a man of honest principles, however unpopular, replaced for political self-interest by a individuals with track records of betrayal and possession of no principles other than a desire to retain office ?
Your description of Tony Abbot as a “repulsive, hateful reactionary.” is a slander that does you great disservice and proves your knowledge of the former PM be be gathered by selective reading from his most extreme critics.
Tony Abbot is a politician whose leftist enemies have always run a highly successful smear campaign. The myths and untruths about him, are easy to dispel, but that doesn’t matter to those who needed to cast him as a sort of boogeyman.
I didn’t agree with all the policies of Tony Abbot, nor does he represent the faction of the party I endorse. but I did admire his steadfast honesty, and courage to pursue his convictions despite the risk to popularity or even retaining office.
I’m not an expert in Australian (or even my own country’s) politics, but Abbott (note spelling with two t’s) is a climate change denier who aggressively stalled the migration to renewables while ushering in more coal with its nightmarish damage to human health and that of the environment. I’m not sure what more needs to be said.
Craig,
Tony Abbott (my laptop auto-spell insists on one T :), is not really a “climate change denier”. This is a myth cobbled together out of context comments by the media and political enemies.
His opposition has never been towards the science of climate climate change, ( he’s a Rhodes Scholar) nor the need to lower emissions. His was responding to the often hysterical, never scientific, claims and demands by ” climate change ” extremists advocating ill-conceived, ineffective and even dangerous policies.
Australia is a major coal exporting nation, with 73% domestic energy generated from coal.
In a mere six years the policies pursued by the previous leftist Labour/green government had devastated the Australian economy, created massive debt, and wreaked not only traditional investment but destroyed the local solar industry. Green investment had become a quagmire of poorly thought out failed projects, reliant in taxpayer funding, ridden with corruption and scandal.
Worse, the fanatical pronouncements by local “climate change advocates” had cost lives and massive property damage in Queensland.
Tony Abbott’s observations must be taken in that context. ( He’s noted for plain speaking). Your description that he “stalled a migration to renewables while ushering in more coal”, is either naive, or disingenuous. There was never a practical plan for the Australian economy to ” migrate to renewables”.
I realize that those not familiar with Australia may imagine a rural nation of sunshine. In fact, Australia is one of the most urbanized nations on earth. The vast majority of the population live in four energy intensive large cities on the seaboard, each with vast suburbs.
The continent has very rivers and mountains capable of providing Hydro generation, but Australia does have an abundance of coal, and natural gas. The policies of the previous government, had led to a massive reduction of local manufacture leading to an unhealthy reliance on the mining industry boom to pay for for economic prosperity. That boom ended as Abbott came to power. The incoming conservative government inherited an economic train wreak, which required unpopular measures to rectify.
The reality is that Abbott’s often derided climate policies have started to achieve emission reduction targets, beyond that of the previous government.
To ask a nation to abandon 73% of its energy production, or abandon one of its most valuable sources of export income, based on little more than emotional ideology, is absurd. The Peoples Republic of China will not stop using coal because Australia refuses to supply they’ll just buy it elsewhere or worse, use more domestic brown coal.
Tony Abbott is neither “repulsive”, nor an “aggressive climate change denier ” , he simply disagrees with wasteful, ineffective, and dangerous policies pursued from ideology and populist fashion, backed by little science, and even less commonsense.
If President Carter had listened to those who expressed doubts about the wisdom of the idea of turning corn into ethanol, the US wouldn’t have the huge problem of dismantling the economic and environment disaster that is today’s US ethanol industry.
There may be those who deserve such an extreme description as “repulsive, hateful reactionary” , but the Tony Abbott is certainly not one of them.
Describing someone in such terms, simply because they disagree with your ideology , is neither helpful or accurate, and better left to the rhetoric of fanatics.
Your desire for the success of renewable energy is commendable, but unrealistic claims and reviling those who challenge the efficacy of renewable technology, is counter-productive.
I live in Victoria Australia. From time to time in Australia , even in the south, there are long periods of drought.
In response to one such drought, and assured by the Greens and climate change advocates of the immediate and future need, the then Labour/ Green government, ordered a large (coal-fired desalination plant to be built. The plant was built, and aside from choosing and antiqued, obsolete design, the plant has never pumped any water. The $18 billion bill to Victorian water users and taxpayers, will take 60 years to discharge the debt.
The plant was ordered in 2007, but the drought broke in 2009. By the time the next drought severe enough to require the use of desalinated water reoccurs, the plant will no longer be viable. At the time, tony Abbott was reviled for his opposition to the plants construction, advocating instead, a more simple program of constructing natural aquifers, a not only more environmental, but ten times cheaper solution and costing the taxpayer almost nothing.
I was inspired enough to build a series of very effective aquifers on my own property, only to be rewarded by the Labour government with a new tax on conserving water !
So perhaps you will understand my defense of a man who prefers natural aquifers, built by local landowners, as opposed to those you support, building vast coal fired white elephants to solve unscientific “climate change ” emergencies, that never existed ?
When I lived in Fiji (1994 – 2004) the news covered Australia fairly well so I learned about Australian politics. Of course things have changed since 2004.
Hi freggersjr,
The big change in Australian politics occurred with the 2007 General Election, when a younger electorate voted for the a Labour-Green leftist government at the height of the “green ” boom.
The incoming government was elected at a time when the Australian economy was the strongest in the world. The outgoing conservatives had paid off the national debt, were running strong budget surpluses, and had set aside a $50 billion dollar “Future Investment Fund ” for infrastructure development.
The outgoing conservative government had been in office a long time, and had miscalculated the fears created by their attempts at Labour market reforms, especially in manufacturing and public service sectors.
The new government looked dynamic, and packed full of exciting new “green” policies.
The media at this time was also undergoing massive upheaval, as social media drove conventional media into a 24 hour news cycle needing to be constantly fed with increasingly sensational news stories. Suddenly politics, and Federal politics at that, were interesting. The incoming government, made excellent copy, with quick, entertaining sound bite style policies, and hyped excitement about ideologically based politics that appeal to the younger voter.
The result was (and still is) governments, and political parties, got caught up and became prisoners of a media addicted to high drama and political sensationalism.
This produced the six years of increasingly chaotic Labour-Green government, as the economy deteriorated despite the greatest resources boom in Australia’ history. Massive public debt was accumulated to fund exciting but ill-conceived projects that increasingly collapsed in scandal, corruption and failure. The public service became unsustainable due to the recruitment of large numbers of “true believers” on the public payroll.
The September 2013 election in of a conservative government, earned the hatred of all those lost their jobs as the new Abbott government cut public service wastage and closed down failed projects. The fact that the new governments policies worked and stability returned, saw the media without sensational news stories it was so addictred, and resulted in a further loss of audience..
The media campaign conducted by leftist media outlets targeted the new Prime Minister with an intensity never before seen in Australian politics. The new PM was an easy target. A basically shy, earnest, awkward conservative, he speaks often too candidly, and becomes easy prey for a media determined upon mischief. Polling, which was once only commissioned as part of election campaigns, became a daily obsession with the media, and constructed to create an atmosphere of high political drama.
In such an atmosphere, politicians have become obsessed with “popularity’ and “style” over policy and achievement. Government has become a sort of “reality’ show, with constant measuring of the popularity of individual personalities as portrayed by the media, rather administrative ability.
Sadly, this has led to less balanced media analysis, poorer quality journalism, “dumbing down” of the electorate, and less respect and stability for public office.
You are quite correct that Solar power has a very valuable use in specialist situations, and shows promise as storage capacity technology improves to make a more significant contribution to power generation.
I also agree with your assessment that only advanced nuclear (I favour Thorium) technology can produce the sort of “power on demand’ to replace older form of energy such as coal in industrialized nations
Like you, my real concern is the refusal by “true believers” to support practical, less ‘ perfect’ solutions, in favour of vast, expensive (if exciting) failures that require massive disruption and “reorganizations ” of society.
The expression “Watermelon Greens” , is gaining popularity as a description for those who disguise the old failed leftist ideologies, as environmentalism.
It’s the smaller, practical environmental technologies that are often over looked, that make the difference.
marcopolo,
Even though the Oz government is of the Westminster style, it seems to have some of the same problems as our U.S. government, i.e., it tends to be a media-driven government. Because of a court decision, extra extremely unbelievably rich people and corporations can spend unlimited amounts of $$ on political campaigns which distorts the election process. Actually, if voters used some sense and remained unswayed by repetitious meaningless political messages, the amount spent on political campaigns would be unimportant.
People unfamiliar with British English can be confused by news from Oz and the UK. In American English, a bill that is tabled is a bill that has been set aside and will not be acted upon whereas in British English, a tabled bill is one that is scheduled for prompt action.
At least a few of the U.S. federal politicians are very well informed on energy matters, including both solid fuel uranium reactors and the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR). However, because there is a very strong anti-nuclear crowd that will vote against anyone who supports nuclear power, practically all the politicians, including even the well-informed ones, see even using the word “nuclear” as the kiss of political death. I greatly fear that we will end up either doing nothing to reduce CO2 emissions significantly or we will spend $billions on an unworkable power technology THEN have to change course.
If there were a practical energy storage technology which could store huge amounts of energy then wind and solar might be workable. However, the cost of adequate storage could easily exceed the cost of the generating capacity. And, because of the intermittent nature of wind and solar power, they would have to be overbuilt by a factor of perhaps five so that, when combined with storage, we would have adequate and reliable power.
Considering how long wind and solar power have been around, one would suppose that if they were practical for large industrial countries there would already be examples of countries, such as Germany, Holland, and Spain, which are powered solely with renewables. I see it as unwise to put excessive hope in a technology that has nowhere been demonstrated to be practical, i.e., able to provide reliable and adequate power at all times without being backed up with nuclear and fossil fueled systems. It’s just as bad as implementing social programs on a large scale without first trying them on a small scale to evaluate them adequately, which has been done with disastrous results.
Although it looks to me as though the LFTR is probably the way to go, I would favor doing R & D on more than one nuclear technology until we could determine with more assurance which is actually best, the way we failed to do before implementing the pressurized water uranium reactor on a large scale.
As an aside, in January 2004 I drove a rental car all over Tassy and did some hiking there too. I took a very nice picture of the sun setting over the Gorden River and have an enlargement of it framed and in my living room (lounge in British English). I’ve been in several cities in Oz and would like to take a trip to Queensland sometime.
Frank
Thank you Frank for those kind comments about my adopted homeland.
I was born and educated in the UK, although my Mother was Australian and I have strong ties to both countries,although I consider myself Australian. My children are all Australian with only my younger son attending senior school and University in the UK.
The Westminster style of politics tends to make political contributions by wealthy individuals or corporations less of a factor , certainly less influential (Although the Labour Party receives the bulk of it’s funding from the Trade Union movement, who remain important backroom players).
The problem with “true believers” of alternate energy, is they believe what they want to believe, without any critical analysis. It’s a largely feel good belief, more akin to a moral/religious crusade, than a scientifically based, logical program.
This is the problem of confusing environmental objectives, with leftist ideology, it becomes impossible to remain objective.
Industrialized nations need strong economies, generating surpluses to afford innovation. This requires a complex and rational agenda, not a passionate chaotic crusade of disruption and disaster.
I would like to see well meaning individuals like Craig and Cameron, employ less extreme rhetoric, and display a more critical analysis of the technologies they advocate.
The world needs people of goodwill to help make an evolutionary transition, not advocate a disruptive and destructive revolution resulting in nothing but further disaster.
I agree that further funding of research into all nuclear technologies, for that matter all alternate technologies, is very important. The research must be conducted by scientific and objective methods, free from prejudice and ideological bias.
marcopolo
In all fairness to Craig he is not unalterably opposed to nuclear power but I think that he wants an unrealistic level of proof that nuclear can be made acceptable and that, except in some limited special circumstances, wind and solar simply are not practical.
I became familiar with the Westminster style of democratic government when I lived in Fiji (1994 – 2004). The problem I had with it in Fiji was that cabinet ministers had to be chosen from elected parliamentarians which often made it impossible to choose cabinet ministers who were highly qualified for their portfolios. Moreover, I never could understand how they could properly represent those who elected them while serving in the cabinet. By contrast, in the U.S. system, cabinet members are not chosen from elected representatives. Instead, with the approval of Congress, they are chosen from the public at large which makes it possible to choose highly experienced experts for the positions.
It seems to me that the Westminster system could be modified so that cabinet members are chosen the way they are here thereby leaving the system basically the same but making it possible to choose more highly qualified cabinet members.
The secretary of the Department of Energy here is highly qualified but, unfortunately, it is not clear that it matters since the president and members of Congress still reject nuclear power, at least publicly. The media, including even the Public Broadcasting System, will not make any effort to educate the public. To survive they require a large audience and cannot afford to alienate people by providing information on matters that many people reject.
Probably eventually good energy decisions will be made, but the delays are likely to have very serious consequences. At my advanced age it is unlikely that I will live to see the most serious effects of global warming but it would be very selfish for me not to be concerned.
An analogy.
Back in the 1980s it was discovered that chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) used as refrigerant gasses, were depleting the ozone layer. The most common refrigerant, i.e, refrigerant 12 / R12 / dichlorodifluromethane, which was also used as a propellant in aerosol cans, was particularly damaging. Uninformed environmentalists screamed that we should immediately scrap refrigerators and air conditioners. Had they been informed and known what they were talking about, they would have known that we had refrigerators and air conditioning many years before Dupont invented CFCs.
The ozone layer depletion problem was solved simply by using different gasses for refrigeration. The economic impact was minor and probably many people were never fully aware of the change.
Similarly, at one time, many motorists broke their arms cranking cars to start them. A GM executive actually died of complications of a broken arm resulting from cranking a woman’s Cadillac for her when she stalled the engine. The solution was not to phase out cars, but rather, to develop a practical electric starter which quickly became universal.
Similarly, the problems associated with nuclear power can be circumvented by changing to a nuclear technology that does not require multiple levels of safety provisions and extreme diligence to keep it safe and which also greatly reduces the nuclear waste problem. But even our current mediocre nuclear technology poses far less risk than global warming.
Frank,
It’s hard to disagree with such a well reasoned analogy. Demanding ” unattainable perfection ” at the expense of ” practical good “, is a fault of idealists.
The idea that if a desirable technology doesn’t fulfill the needs of society, then society should adapt to suit an ideologically correct technology, simply results in nothing beneficial occurring.
You raise an interesting point about Cabinet Ministers in the Westminster system. There are advantages and disadvantages of having legislators fulfilling the role of Cabinet Ministers.
Among the advantages is immediate accountability to the electors for the conduct and behavior of the portfolio. The Minister can be questioned on an almost daily basis by his fellow parliamentarians regarding issues concerning the bureaucracy, in theory this leads to more transparent government.
In the Westminster system many of the more ceremonial functions of the Presidency are relieved by the function of a Constitutional Monarch. Constitutional Monarchies are built on custom and accord with the people, the theory being that a heredity head of state, with largely symbolic symbolic and traditional power is a better safeguard of the constitution and the democratic process than an elected official, who may become a tyrant corruptly seizing unbridled power.
No system is perfect, and all systems of government rely upon the commonsense of the people to keep politicians in check. It’s true that people get the government they deserve, but it’s also true that politicians get the people they deserve !
Both the elected, and the electors have responsibilities.
marcopolo,
As you say, no system is perfect. And, having someone to perform ceremonial functions may have advantages, but not all westminster governments have a hereditary monarch. The ceremonial figurehead could be elected, perhaps from a list of Hollywood (or Bollywood or whatever) actors.
Getting back to environmental issues, something occurred to me this morning before arising. Why not push for a feasibility study and point out the folly of attempting to implement a large multibillion-dollar scale renewable power system before doing a feasibility study? Surely a more rational approach would be one of the two following or something similar:
1) Pick an area to determine whether it is is practical to have a system that will provide 100% renewable power with no interruptions for perhaps two years. In the U.S. that could be California or some other state. In Oz it could NSW or some other state. Pour huge resources into that state to build the system and see whether it works. There could be a fossil fuel backup so people would not be without power if it failed, but having to use backup would be considered proof of failure or a need to tweak the system. If the approach could be proved to be workable in that area, THEN, and NOT BEFORE THEN, expand to the entire country. If it does not work, then billions of dollars would be saved and nuclear power could be expanded to provide for the entire country.
OR
2) Install sensors in many of the area where it seems practical to have solar and wind systems. Gather the data from all the sensors to determine how much power would have been produced if real solar and wind systems had been built and interconnected. Any intervals of insufficient power would be proof of failure. If it were proved possible by such a study that solar and wind would be practical, THEN build an entire nation-wide system.
It seems to me that no rational environmentalist could object to that. The cost would be a small fraction of the cost of implementing a country-wide system. IF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY PROVED THAT AN ACTUAL SYSTEM WOULD BE PRACTICAL, THEN IT WOULD BE FAR EASIER TO GET FUNDS TO BUILD AN ACTUAL SYSTEM. If it did not work, then the anti-nuclear crowd could either accept the fact or suggest changes to the feasibility study.
Does this seem reasonable?
Do you have any suggestions regarding it?
Frank
Frank,
You are correct, Constitutional Monarchies only work because of a faith in traditions etc. The principle advantage Constitutional Monarchs possess is long term independence from the executive political process. They don’t have to worry about being elected etc, so they as Heads of State they are above the political process and can act as reserve guardians of the Constitution.
Regarding your points one or two, this information is already available. From Denmark to Spain Germany to California, the are major examples of Wind and Solar power with enormous investments.
The problem is not generation, but storage and distribution. Intermittent power generation is difficult to distribute though the existing grid, and very difficult to engineer so it’s compatible with traditional generation.
Essentially, the problem is fundamental. Industrial societies require power on demand, not power when available. The distribution system requires constant steady power with certain parameters.
Solar can be useful on a localized basis to augment grid power, such as a factory or shopping centres etc.
The problem begins when enthusiastic Wind and Solar advocates refuse to accept the limits of the technologies and either rely upon the fantasy of total generation as opposed to usage generation, or demand to reorganize society to suit the technology. Germany and Spain are excellent examples.
Energy storage technologies are being developed, but there are real problems to overcome before any of the current technologies become economically feasible.
Marcopolo,
I’m planning to see my state senator soon. His position is that nuclear power is not necessary; he strongly supports solar. I agree that storage and distribution are serious problems and although it is conceivable that storage technology could eventually improve to make renewables practical, there is no guarantee whereas we know that nuclear will work. If improved storage systems became practical while nuclear was being implemented, we could always change course and expand renewables. Good storage systems could benefit nuclear too by keeping demand more steady.
As we know, Germany has built new lignite coal-burning plants in addition to importing power from France and other countries to make it possible to phase out nuclear power. China is also building more coal burning plants and is actually importing coal from Oz, or at least it wants to. It seems to me that if wind and solar could be made practical with current technology it would already have been done in Germany and Holland and China would not be building more coal burning plants. However, the anti-nuclear crowd sees it differently. It would help if I could find one well-written document that is very credible and detailed which would explain exactly what has been tried in those countries and what problems have been encountered. As it is, the information tends to be piecemeal.
I greatly fear that we will end up spending billions and billions of dollars without solving CO2 emissions problems thereby delaying practical solutions until the global warming problem is far more advanced that it would be if we implemented workable solutions as quickly as possible.