John Newlands: The other alternative is hydro electric generation. We live in a land which is only partially sunburnt - the north is subject to wet monsoonal conditions and a fair number of wet tropical cyclones which tend to promote huge levels of flooding. Think of all that surplus water stored in huge dams and piped down to the Darling River. Think of all the hydro generators which could feed off this controlled water source. Think of the number of 'boat people' who could be gainfully employed building this structure. Think of the industry which could be built to provide the individual parts of such a great project. Why, it could be bigger than the Snowy Scheme - and we managed that well with post-war migrants. Is this not a lesson for today?

Michael Hay,

This of the cost! It is totally uneconomic

Hydro needs both water flow and hydraulic head (i.e. elevation drop). What you propose does not have the elevation differences needed.
This might be of interest: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/05/pumped-hydro-system-cost/

Sean Hot Rocks (from what I can gather) are mostly to be found in day spas where they apparently replace actual massage by sitting warmly on someone.

Lazy and an abuse of geological samples!

Anton. I agree with your comment except for the last sentence.

There is nothing green about CCS - it is a coal industry pipe dream.

Anton, very good description of the impossibility of CCS ever becoming a useful part of GHG mitigation.
You spoilt your post however with an unwarranted and incorrect slur against those who want to protect the natural world for ourselves and future generations, namely greens whether small g or large G.
There is nothing green about CCS. It is a process which is anti-green and makes a mockery of all that environmentalists are seeking to achieve.

Thank you, Anton Lang for putting into reality the process of CSS. It is patently impracticable and being used merely as cover for the continuation of fossil fuel energy.

My only disagreement is, (as with Mike Hansen) that it is not a "green" solution. Unless one considers it to be a green screen to hide the worst consequences of fossil fuels.

There are other cheaper, short term actions that can help while phasing in renewables:

" There is, however, a short-term strategy. We can slow this warming quickly by cutting emissions of four other climate pollutants: black carbon, a component of soot; methane, the main component of natural gas; lower-level ozone, a main ingredient of urban smog; and hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which are used as coolants. They account for as much as 40 percent of current warming.

Unlike carbon dioxide, these pollutants are short-lived in the atmosphere. If we stop emitting them, they will disappear in a matter of weeks to a few decades. We have technologies to do this, and, in many cases, laws and institutions to support these cuts. Moreover, President Obama has the executive authority to move ahead aggressively on these pollutants, as he did last year in ordering substantial reductions in auto and truck emissions. By doing so, he may persuade other countries to follow.

Such reductions, if they occurred worldwide, would have the potential to slash the rate of global warming by half by midcentury — equivalent to wiping out the warming we have experienced over the last 50 years. These reductions would also prevent an estimated two to four million deaths from air pollution and avoid billions of dollars of crop loss annually, according to a study commissioned by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization.

We can reduce black carbon emissions significantly in the next few decades by using particulate filters on cars and trucks and switching to low-sulfur diesel. By employing those strategies, California, for instance, has cut the warming effect from diesel emissions by nearly half since the late 1980s.

In addition, we can further reduce emissions of black carbon and carbon monoxide (which produces lower-level ozone) in the developing world simply by turning to efficient biomass cook stoves instead of using traditional mud stoves, by replacing kerosene lamps in villages with solar lamps, and by deploying modern brick kilns.

Methane emissions can be cut by nearly a third by reducing leaks from gas pipes, coal mines and hydraulic fracturing, by capturing methane from waste dumps, water treatment plants and manure, and by cutting emissions from rice paddies.

These reductions in methane, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds would also significantly reduce lower-level ozone, which is another important climate-warming pollutant that is formed by the interaction of sunlight with other short-lived pollutants. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/opinion/going-beyond-carbon-dioxide.html

We can start now.

And the basis for this 11 billion is? Please please please not another irrelevant reference or press report!

Witter,

I'd like to see the evidence for $11 billion support for fossil fuel electricity generation. I think you'll find it is negligible.

"Rich countries spent $58 billion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2011.

That’s roughly five times the amount they spent on “fast start” financing for climate adaptation and mitigation in developing countries, according to an analysis released today at the Doha climate talks by Oil Change International."

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/climate-aid-vs-fossil-fuel-subsidies-guess-whos-winning-86052

As long as there remain shills for the fossil fuel industry, no action will be taken just talk, talk talk.

No, not at all.

Nonsense.

It is slavish adherence to the zombie economics of the right which has caused many of the environmental problems that we now face.

The continuing belief in the mystical powers of the unregulated market in the face of AGW, the greatest market failure in human history is the hallmark of a crank.

Try "Its the science, stupid".

Re your request below
http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/CR_2003_paper.pdf
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/twelve-billion-holes-in-plan-to-cut-carbon-20110309-1bny3.html

In response to the normal press articles which are usually used to substantiate these baseless assertions I will quote the first reference
"From review of these reports, it is evident that the magnitude of subsidies to fossil fuels in Australia is still
uncertain and that further work is required to arrive at an accurate estimate of these subsidies, using a consistent
definition) "
Once again hoist with your own petard!

Paul Wittwer,

From your first link (Section 7)
"Subsidies for generation or use of electricity do not necessarily act as subsidies to fossil fuels."

In other words, no identified subsidies for fossil fuel used in electricity generation.

So either you haven;t a clue what you are talking about or you are intentionally being misleading.

John - Can I suggest not cherry picking the one line of that report that you think supports your view?

Did you read the conclusion? Do you think that is an accurate summation of the subsidies, can you see how the line you quote is used by the author to establish a rationale for the paper?

In other words the quote you use is the very question the author sets up the paper to answer - as we see in the very next paragraph "This paper builds on and extends the earlier work on subsidies to provide a more complete and up to date description of the subsidies to fossil fuel production and consumption in Australia and a new estimate of their magnitude."

Sigh.

Peter Lang - why not put the entire quote from the start of section 7? This would be the honest approach to discourse.

"Subsidies for generation or use of electricity do not necessarily act as subsidies to fossil fuels. However, fossil fuels are used to generate about 91% of Australia’s electricity. As a result, a large proportion of any subsidy that supports electricity consumption effectively supports fossil fuel consumption."

Grendellus Malleolus,

The statement you quoted is silly. The subsidies are not for fossil fuels, they are for electricity (no matter how it is generated). They would apply for any electricity. Renewables get very large subsidies. These are specifically for renewables.

It is misleading to imply the subsidies for fossil fuels are high compared with subsidies for renewables. The opposite is the case. Subsidies are almost non existent for fossil fuel electricity generation but ridiculously high for renewables. In fact, according to the lead article, they are $30-$50 billion for renewables (I have previously calculated the $30 billion cumulative 2011 to 2020; I am not sure of the basis for the $50 billion). Using the $30 billion figure works out to be about over $100/MWh of subsidies.

Do you now see that you have a misunderstanding about the subsidies for fossil fuel electricity generation.

"The statement you quoted is silly. The subsidies are not for fossil fuels, they are for electricity (no matter how it is generated). They would apply for any electricity. Renewables get very large subsidies. These are specifically for renewables"

Silly - really? that is the best you can offer?

I might be more moved to accept your point if you offered something substantive. For example I would agree that you cannot assume that because 91% of generation (in 2003) is from fossil fuels that also 91% of the dollar value of subsidies also flows to fossil fuel sources. However - the author was clearly not attempting to make that point.

Also the author was writing in 2003 - I think that for us, almost decade later, to judge the paper in the light of recent decisions is somewhat in error.

My point was that you picked a line that supported your view and ignored what followed immediately after.

Also - you claim that "Subsidies are almost non existent for fossil fuel electricity generation" I think you are being a little clever here and this relates back to the author of the 2003 paper's point. If there is a subsidy for fossil fuel exploration and/or production, then this keeps the price of fossil fuels lower than their true market value and increases the attractiveness of this fuel source to electricity generators.

Subsidies - for any energy technology, distort the market. In some cases this is intentional - to keep prices down, to reduce the impact of an externality or to deliver a policy objective. The distortion however exists and I would argue that the fossil fuel industry is mature and highly profitable and does not require further support from governments.

Areas where subsidies would be required would be to support alternatives - such as nuclear, wind and solar. I would argue that solar PV is almost a mature industry and is perhaps near the point where subsidies will no longer be required.

Grendellus Malleolus,

Face up to it. You are wrong. You've just written eight paragraphs of bla bla bla without a single dollar value, no evidence of subsidies for fossil fuels for electricity generation, unsubstantiated assertions and if statements. It's total nonsense. If you had some fact's you'd be able to substantiate them. You'd be able to show the amount of subsidy in $/MWh of electricity generated, You'd be able to show it is more than the >$100/MWh of subsidies already committed to renewable energy to 2020. You can't. You are wrong. Do you have the integrity to admit when you are wrong?

Peter, please cut and paste the quote where I claim that there are subsidies for fossil fuel generation of electricity. I was pointing out that subsidising production has the effect of subsidising generation. Please, fault my economic here.

In any case you are wrong. I don't know about other states and territories but WA pays nearly half a billion dollars to Synergy and Horizon in operating subsidy payments and I know that the Qld government has a gas subsidy to support use of LNG and coal seam gas - both are fossil fuels.

I would be willing to bet there are other subsidies around australia.

Maleous,

You are clearly wrong. Admit it. Acknowledge you were wrong. Or don't you have the integrity to admit when you are mistaken.

My advice to Peter Lang.

Quoting Lord Monckton, climate crank and now a "birther" is not a good idea if you want to be taken seriously.

http://www.desmogblog.com/peer-realm-monckton-now-birther

Brian Boss,

You say renewables actually work and quote the ABC - hardly an authoritative or unbiased source on matters climate and renewable energy.

You may have missed the comment below which in summary says:
Comparing renewables and nuclear: for 1/3 the subsidies nuclear would deliver about 5 times the CO2 savings.

Solar and wind power have shown proven savings. http://www.renewablesinternational.net/renewables-payback-7-billion-euros-in-2011/150/537/56285/

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/20/5-states-with-most-solar-wind-energy-had-smallest-increase-in-electricity-prices-2005-2010/

https://theconversation.edu.au/power-of-the-wind-how-renewables-are-lowering-sa-electricity-bills-9945

Alex Cannara,

Excellent points. Regarding the leaks of CO2 from storage have a look at ThinkingScientist's excellent comment about modelling oil and gas reservoirs and predictions from that modelling. It's informative for climate scientists and for geosequestration.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/12/2/quantifying-uncertainties-in-climate-science.html?currentPage=4#comments

Thanks for the link Peter.

I say we put BP in charge of all sequestration wells.
;]

Just for the record, the demonstrated safety of nuclear power is illustrated here...

http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l (PSI ENSAD)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

And, all these LWRs are based on a 1946 patent. Advanced fuel cycles are safer & more efficient, even able to make carbon-neutral fuels for aircraft, etc.

Contamination from nuclear power is also a big threat to aquatic health. A history of dumping nuclear waste in the oceans has contaminated areas all over the world. Mining of uranium is a huge source of water contamination. Instead of only measuring construction effects, the whole life cycle and operation of a power system must be considered. wind power runs with no ongoing pollution or emissions. Solar power is cheaper than nuclear, and has no environmental damages in use. http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/article/est-data-shows-increase-in-average-savings-20121108

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/954262--solar-power-outshines-nuclear-power-study

John, you gripe about comments against you, but you clearly don't read.

CO2 emissions are great to stop, say today, but that will not stop ocean acidification, already threatening food supplies, especially in Nordic regions.

John Coochey,

Good question. I'll answer it for those who might think you are being serious.

"It's the economics stupid!"

Solar is uneconomic and cannot provide reliable power supply (even with storage).

The latest and largest solar thermal plant in the world, now being built in California has 6 hours storage and will cost $19/W average power supplied. That's about three to four times the cost of nuclear.

And it is not a baseload power plant. It would need about 100 h storage to be a reliable baseload capable.

Very good Peter. I know that the CO2 construction burdens for wind farms easily exceed that for nuclear.

And you can check out Hargraves' analysis in his new book here... http://tinyurl.com/cxplxx3

He will be on a Google+ and YouTube conversation on the 27th, in case you're interested...
https://plus.google.com/events/c3mv269pcthe63cm166qs1v45k0

Nuclear power has high emissions in the supply chain and does not make a significant reduction of global warming for many decades, even with a large increase in the number of reactors. The mining and contamination impacts of nuclear power as well as the high economic cost make nuclear a very poor choice. The best way to reduce emissions is at the source, by installing renewable energy systems that do not raise emissions, and also do not contaminate or create high health damages. It is ridiculous to complain about the slightly high cost of renewable energy, then advocate CCS, which is even more expensive, and has failed to show good results in pilot projects. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/02/cbo-carbon-capture-efforts-arent-going-so-well/

CCS is just an excuse to avoid phasing out coal use.

Aligatorhardt,

You make many assertions using adjective like "high, 'many", "large", etc. It's all meaningless without context.

Big picture: nuclear is the cleanest, safest and least cost way to reduce emissions. Its also by far the fastest way to reduce emissions by the amount advocated.

I suggest you are reading the hype and nonsense put out by the so called 'environmental NGOs' and other anti-nuclear groups and you are not seriously considering the veracity of what you are reading.

Alligator -- you need to study up on what actually goes on in mining and nuclear porcesses.

There are no emissions from a nucleasr plant when it's in operation, except for perhwps a little Tritium, las is used on your watch and alarm clock dials, because its emissions can't penetrate plastic.

The emissions from mining are under the control of the govt., just as they are for any mineral or fuel production business.

In fact, the combustion industry here in the USA is allowed to emit not just CO2, Mercury, Arsenic, etc., but Radon, Uranium and other radioactive materials naturally found in rocks -- mined coal is >50% rock; burned coal still contains rock. These NORM exemptions likley exist in other countries, giving rise to tens of thousands of deaths each year, just from emissions. A windmill requires these emissions to be generated.

In fact, a windmill causes these emissions to be generated at about twice the rate per kWHr of any nuke.

The reason nuclear has always been superior and always feared by the combustion folks, is power density. Requiring only a pound of Uranium to be consumed in a reactor while it runs an entire city for an hour is wholly different from mining coal, extracting gas/oil, etc. and burning them at the rate of tons per minute.

The energy density for nuclear power is ~500,000 times that of any combustion source. That;s why thinking environmentalists have supported it for decades.

Yes, solar is fine, on local structures, which is exactly what we promote in Calif., as with the "million solar roof" initiative, and the various municipal & county-government deployments on existing/new structures.

There's no need for 'farms of any sort, by they solar or wind.

There is need for EVs and storage, and 24/7 nuclear.

Gator, are your straw men as fake as your name? No one's advocating CCS as a solution.

Righteousness is just so hard, eh John?
;]

I support John Coochey in this quest to get the comment removed. I'd support him if he demanding an apology be posted on line.

I suggest it is very bad that someone can call him a liar, not substantiate the assertion, and the Conversation allows the comment to remain.

I find this is a clear demonstration of a partisan bias in deleting comments. The conversation frequently deletes comments posted by those who do not accept the Left's ideological beliefs, but does not apply the same rules to those who apparently share the Conversation's clear bias towards Left ideology.

Dave, Sure - I get your point. The carbon got sequestered, we are releasing it, and it will get sequestered again. And you are probably right, that cycle will occur. The problem with your argument is time scales. It took how long for all that coal, gas and oil to be stored? The coal we burn was formed 300-400 million years ago - over millions of years and at a time when the seas were massively more sulfurous than they are today. We are releasing what took hundreds of millions of years to store in just a couple of centuries. We are releasing carbon faster than it can be re-sequestered. it will take hundreds of millions of years this time - just as it did last time.

Well said. Instead we are trying to cram the genie back into its bottle.