Give us more! The electricity generating industry are crying poor, the $3.5 billion in free permits isn’t enough, they want more. Should they be compensated because their assets are losing value? I mean if you own something, say a computer, and the technology changes and your computer becomes a pile of junk sitting in the garage taking up space, should the government, ie the taxpayer, subsidise you for the financial loss involved when you buy a new computer? Perhaps our taxes should be used to protect the asset value of everyone’s cars when we have to replace them with electric cars because there’s no oil left. If you have a computer, or a car or an electric generator then you might be inclined to think this is something the government should look at, after all it is better that someone else spend their money to keep you living the life you deserve. The government will only waste the money on social security anyway…
Big electricity generators plead for $20bn ETS aid | The Australian.
But wait! There’s more….
Observant readers would have noticed the the links to two other stories in the Oz, one reporting on the ongoing fallout in political debate over the ALP’s new uranium friendly position and and the other took you to a online poll. The poll results are interesting in the context of the broader debate but deserve some critical assessment. First there is the nature of the question, most people are concerned about the potential for catastrophic climate change resulting from greenhouse emissions. But number 1 target for reducing greenhouse gasses is the poor electricity generating industry, their plight is rather severe. They create the electricity we use by converting carbon in the ground into carbon in the air to supply us with the electricity we have come to love and need.
So we have a situation where we need reliable electricity to sustain our standard of living but the generators are a big problem. We also have another problem, the electricity infrastructure has grown up around the coal fired power stations. If we start switching them off we not only need to replace them with plants that produce similar amounts of electricity, but we also have to connect the new sources to the grid. In simplistic terms it is easy to see the appeal of nuclear, it’s like for like replacement without the carbon problem.
The supporters of nuclear have been hard at work lobbying for its widespread adoption but until the global greenhouse gas problem arrived they had little support given the fearful potential inherit in the nuclear fuel cycle. The people with investments in the nuclear industry must be ecstatic about current developments.
So the question, framed as it is by the Oz is almost guaranteed to produce the spectacular result it has.
Yet the simple choices exclude the potential for a serious evaluation of all the technologies that might address the problem. The logic of the poll is: we have a greenhouse gas problem (agreed) and superficially nuclear power looks like a good option because it supplies electricity just like coal power so do you (the public) think we should use it ? The question doesn’t present any options for solving the initial problem, implicit in the question is the thinking that nuclear is the only solution to greenhouse gases emissions by coal fired power plants.
This country is not only blessed (or cursed) with abundant uranium. We have a zillion square kilometres of the sunniest land on the planet and lots of wind and geothermal options. These sources of power don’t commit us or the planet to the nuclear fuel cycle, they have no dangerous polluting radioactive by-products and they also reduce our carbon footprint. The problem with these alternatives isn’t that they are not viable or unproven, the problem is there are no vested financial interests buying up media space and lobbying governments on their behalf.
Perhaps we should be guided here by an old adage, let the buyer beware. The nuclear industry is selling something, their green credentials are superficial and coincidental, at the heart of the “industry” is the incentive for financial gain whatever the ultimate cost to the world. I am sure no one thought building coal fired power stations would be a problem fifty years ago.
And as a footnote, and as an observation about how the easily online media can manipulate your impression of a story, the poll results page had the caring sharing sensitive image of an ad for the WSPA running along side the results page. Just to make sure you get the message…
