Says, an advocate for Nuclear Energy.

None of those critiques of the Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan are peer reviewed, so you've scored an own goal in logic there.

Unfortunately no peer reviewed journals allow the submission of a 200 page book for peer review. The peer review process is not set up for our kind of contribution.

Zero Carbon Australia researchers are authors and co-authors of a number of peer reviewed scientific journal articles.

If other important publications like the Garnaut Review were written off out of hand because they weren't peer reviewed then it would seriously curtail our ability to, build knowledge learn and understand the world.

Straw man. Publications like the ZCA Stationary Energy Plan shouldn't be written off because they're not peer reviewed (though neither should they be marketed as if they are), they should be written off because they're fundamentally flawed. You haven't been able to answer the critiques of the ZCA plan in ANY forum, let alone a peer-reviewed one.

There is a FAQ on the Beyond Zero Emissions websites that answers the common misconceptions about the plan.

At this stage our biggest change for version 2.0 is acknowledging we got the price competitiveness of Solar Photovoltaics wrong, so that tech will feature far more prominently in version 2.0

Most of the critiques radiate out of a known pro-nuclear blog, frequented by the same cadre of guys who work The Conversation, Climate Spectator, The Drum and Reneweconomy comments sections.

While 86% of the public support more renewable energy, less than 50% support exploring nuclear as an option.

So the critiques are wrong because of who they come from, and energy policy should be determined by populism rather than engineering and physical realities. Brilliant.

We have addressed the critiques in the FAQ which is on the BZE website.

I was addressing the original posters logic which was that our report is not peer reviewed and therefore "non-scientifically-credible" and therefore by that logic any non peer reviewed critique of ours is "non-scientifically-credible" and therefore we shouldn't waste our time on it.

Luke. While you are directing people to comment threads on The Conversation, why not look at comments from Peter Lang, author of many of the BNC posts that you have linked to.

Here is Lang repeating his usual litany of climate denier talking points

"Why are people waking up to the Alarmist’s CAGW scam? See if you can put this together:

First it was called Global Warming
When that didn’t happen it was changed to ‘climate change’
Then people realised the climate is always changing, so the scare became sea levels would flood our cities by 2010
When that didn’t happen the scare campaign was changed to reduced alkalinity of the oceans (but to be scary they called it ‘acidification of the oceans’),
Then it became super scary “extreme weather events”."

https://theconversation.edu.au/news-ltd-carbon-coverage-campaigning-not-reporting-new-report-news-response-4530

Peter Lang's credibility in any discussion of renewable energy - zero.

Except France is going to close down half of her nuclear fleet when the socialist party gets elected at the May elections.

So France is a FAIL

In which case, the original questions posed by Post Carbon Path become pertinent after all: why would a country step away from a successful decarbonisation strategy, flying in the face of the evidence? I reckon I can answer that one, too: they've been sold the crock that 100% renewables can do the job instead, by people like Matthew Wright.

But we'll see, won't we, both if France actually ramps down atomic energy and if her emissions rise or fall as a result. The initial indications from Germany's embarkation down this path are not good.

Nuclear phaseout in Germany is proceeding on-time and going better than anyone anticipated.

Last year Germany was net exporters of 6TWh of electricity despite having turned off half of their plants - eight of their oldest most dangerous nuclear facilities.

Last year they installed 7,500MW of Solar Photovoltaic, the same as the year before. They are likely to install 8,000MW this year.

Last year they installed 2,000MW of wind, they may do more this year.

France was the happy recipient of much of the 6TWh of net exports Germany made and that was only possible because of the addition of the 7,500MW of Solar Photovoltaic the year before (Which generates just over 6TWh of electricity for the German grid)

And this year exports will be more in the order of 15TWh thanks to the addition of even more solar photovoltaic and wind.

Each TWh exported is worth $80 Million to the German economy.

During the recent cold snap, the inefficient French economy was not able to supply its prolonged demand peak. During the day and night Germany wind was propping up France keeping the French who rely on electric heating warm in their homes.

Without German Solar PV production (and this was in winter too where output is lower) the French would have had to institute widescale blackouts.

Gas peakers in France and Germany were able to line pack to meet the evening peak of peaks at 7PM thanks to them being idled during daylight hours due to the healthy output of thousands of Megawatts of Photovoltaic.

"During the recent cold snap...Germany (sic) wind was propping up France"

Now you're not just being misleading, but deliberately so, since we've had this conversation before: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/the-end-of-baseload-it-may-come-sooner-than-you-think-29425

Less than 10% of the highly exceptional export of German electricity to France consisted of wind. How this can be construed as the statement quoted above is beyond me. This time, I'm going to ask you to substantiate your wilder claims (such as "Without German Solar PV production...the French would have had to institute widescale blackouts"

Actually you have been continually deliberately misleading.

Wind and Solar enabled gas peakers that have limited capacity in there lines (for line packing storage) to be operated at times of higher demand.

Wind and solar saved France from the precipice while it went through this dark in its period in its history of nuclear dependency.
Article in German (use Google Translate to get an idea)
http://www.taz.de/Energiewende-im-Praxistest/!87007/

Here is a chart showing the significant production from the Photovoltaic output in winter in Germany which saved France.
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/files/smthumbnaildata/lightboxdetail/6/3/7/4/1/PVinD.jpg

The information in the links you provided is underwhelming to say the least. Indeed, one point I picked up is that 'less than 10% of exported German electricity was wind' was being generous. Apparently 'less than 3%' would be closer to the mark!

And I didn't need the chart to tell me that German PV wasn't producing anything at the time French demand peaked (7 pm).

In short, I've still seen no evidence to substantiate your claim.

I noticed you commented at 12 midday, 1PM and 2PM were you answering on your own time or on Tasmanian taxpayer time?

It doesn't matter what or how they were exporting, what matters is that they could export because solar and wind were producing.

If they had 10,000MW less Solar then they would have been importing rather than exporting on those days. It's clear cut.

Just let me know about the government job thing as well if you could? Do they have a policy for comments on work time?

"France is a Fail"? Well, France will fail us all if they close down their nuclear plants, because if they do, like Germany and Japan, they will be forced to revert to fossil fuels and their emissions will increase.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/31/us-german-nuclear-carbon-idUSTRE74U2Y220110531

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.348.html
"If Germany doesn't import electricity, its domestic carbon emissions are likely to increase — because even a doubling of power from renewable sources combined with a 10% cut in demand can't quite replace the low-carbon nuclear power that will be lost. Analysts put the increase between 170 million and 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide between 2011 and 2020 (depending on different assumptions about the country's shifting power mix)."

People following this thread may be interested to know that in the last day or two, Mr Wright has seen fit to spam almost every person in my employer organisation (some 50-odd people; not including me though, tellingly), in addition to - get this - just about every Tasmanian state parliamentarian, regarding my comments here and elsewhere.

Some other points.

There is such a thing as 'work breaks'.

I took a day off last week to attend my children's school sports day.

I am the proud owner of an iPad with 3G access.

The reader may draw their own conclusions.

Sorry wrong again. If you selectively set your start date when they turned off Germany's eight oldest most dangerous nuclear plants. Then you could be correct, however Germany is using less coal and gas as more Wind and Solar gets deployed, this has been a serious trend for the past decade and this program has accelerated in the last 5 years.

Germany has 30,000MW of Wind Power and 30,000MW of Solar Photovoltaic.

If that same capacity was installed in Australia, we'd have 70% of our economy running on Wind and Solar.

While France will be dropping from 74% nuclear down below 40% by 2025.

And then of course their is Denmark. Denmark will be running 50% wind power by 2020 with a nice quick deployment of modern efficient wind turbines.

"Germany has 30,000MW of Wind Power and 30,000MW of Solar Photovoltaic.

If that same capacity was installed in Australia, we'd have 70% of our economy running on Wind and Solar."

Utterly misleading tosh. There were days last month when that German wind and solar capacity, combined, PEAKED at less than 5000 MW (solar peaked at 1800 MW!). In other words, for MOST of the time, that 60000 MW of nominal capacity was producing MUCH LESS than 10% of its capacity. Lower latitudes notwithstanding, there is no way you can run even 70% of an economy on that level of reliability.

You can run on that, that's why Denmark has chosen a target of 50% wind power by 2020 and Germany will be running 35% Renewables (mostly solar and wind) by the same date.

In a simple scenario for simple minds (one I do not espouse)

You could deliver a 50GW peak grid with 70% of the annual power coming from 30,000MW of Wind and 30,000MW of Solar Photovoltaic by combining that with 30% fossil gas or biogas and burning that in 40GW of gas peaking plant (gas turbines)

This is not much of a stretch on the 20GW+ of peakers (gas turbines) we have at the moment installed around Australia.

Again, we'll see if Denmark and Germany actually reach those targets. But they can only even be contemplated because of their access to vast hydro storages in Scandinavia and other importation options (not least French nuclear). These are not options for Australia (though I'd be interested to know your opinion of the PNG hydro + HVDC line to Queensland proposal, not that this would be enough).

And in case, these targets still fall far short of the 80% zero-carbon electricity generated in France, which is the sort of level the climate requires.

Christine,

Barry Brook's blog provides a platform for climate deniers like Peter Lang. That's why much of the science and engineering community are not interested in the commentary from that website.

Including Peter Lang's critique of University of Melbourne and Beyond Zero Emissions Zero Carbon Australia project.

The guy has crazy climate denialist / right wing extremist comments all over the place and then expects people to take him seriously?

And on top of that Barry who would otherwise get some respect provides the platform for his crazy ideology.

Where do you get the hydrogen from?

Mark - you say "I find it disappointing that the anti-nuke ideologues simply cannot countenance a rational evidence driven discussion about nuclear - instead routinely preferring to peddle myths and mis-information and ignore the science."

I take it that you are referring to a comment on this thread. Can you be more specific.

Agree with you on wind and solar.

But there are no serious options to build reactors in Australia as they are not really on the table in any western country.

They also have the problem that wind and solar keep reducing in cost and by the time a reactor was built (Even if fast tracked) Wind and Solar and capacity for balancing would be cheaper. So given the huge capital outlay and interest on the build (Financing during construction), It's just cheaper to go renewables.

Barry Brook's blog BNC routinely posts negatively on renewable energy to push its pro-nuclear agenda.

Many of the commenters on the BNC blog are vitriolic and gush with hatred towards advocates of renewable energy or those who work in the industry.

It's easy for people to find that that is the case by reading via the above link.

Matthew - I know Peter Lang can be vitriolic - especially in his attacks claiming anyone who accepts the science of AGW is a "catastrophic alarmist".

I make no excuses for this behaviour which I find reprehensible - and I have said so directly.

Nevertheless as I have posted above what we need is an open minded debate about ALL the options.

Peter has made some well focused and seemingly well founded criticisms of ZCA.

I would ask you to rise above his personal attacks and directly address these critiicisms in a factual and reasonable way if possible? I've seen many well founded critiques of ZCA and not any very satisfactory answers to the criticisms (indeed Peter has just reposted a number of them).

Gievn the importance of actually working toward a solution would you be willing to respond to these criticisms with, as far as possible, well referenced and adat driven responses? Even an article on TC specifally addressing them would be, I think, very helpful. It's time we all moved beyond these partisan either/or debates.

Renewables (like nuclear) are far from perfect - it serves no ones interests to pretend otherwise - rather it would be better of the weaknesses of both options were acknowledged as wqell as recognising the strengths of alternatives whilst at the same time putting forward a balanced case for why one's favoured option (in your case renewables) can do more of the heavy lifting

Mark,

Again, as climate scientists would not waste their time on talking with Peter on climate science as he will just change shape and colour every time they correct him on something as he is an ideologue full of hatred, given his vitriolic hatred towards researchers in the renewables field it is flatly a waste of time responding.

However I will give you one or two proxy's for how bad that critique of Global Warming denier Peter Lang's is.

#1 "Comparing Australia’s energy use per capita with Northern Europe ignores the significant differences in population density and climate between the two regions. To address this, we have used ABARE’s forecast for 2020 as the benchmark year for our analysis."

So even without a serious energy efficiency program operating in Australia NEM electricity demand has dropped from 210TWh in 2007 to 194TWh 2012/2013.

A. Looks like BZE's assumption that we could drop end use energy demand through a serious energy efficiency program is supported by the BAU case while ABARE is out now on energy demand by more than 10%. (for 2011).

B. Although BZE kept all the existing Aluminium smelters in and operating under our scenario it now looks like a number of these smelters will close, furthering the case for lower demand in 2020.

C. Photovoltaic - we were too conservative here, PV distributed throughout the grid would have seriously increased the likelihood of achieving the demand side reduction (we treat PV as a fuel saver but in the plan only allocated 5%. However now on a per-capita basis if we had Germany's penetration of PV, we'd already be host to 8,200MW of PV leading to 13TWh of generation (6.7%) or if we go with per capita PV versus German 2020, then we'd be getting 26TWh (13.4%)

D. The other part of the demand reduction is switching to heat pumps (renewable ambient heat) which is what they promote in (former) pro nuclear Japan and France. With a COP of 5.0 for space heating and 3.0 for hot water This is where much of the commercial building and domestic building demand reduction comes from. We're still delivering comparable energy to buildings but we're using much less energy because the refrigeration cycle is doing the heavy lifting.

#2 We do not continue to export LNG - that is our scenario. But Peter and co decide to keep on exporting it. Nothing I can say about this except not our scenario.

#3 Part 4.1 uses an ABARE costing on windfarms to try and deconstruct our costing. However this is completely floored as ABAREs wind farm costing includes transmission.
"Given the current cost of turbines in Australia ($2.9 million/MW) a"

The team costed the transmission to hookup wind farms separately which is clear to anyone who studies the plan.

#4 The Tonopah Nevada plant from Solar Reserve is 1/3 the scale of a Solar 220. It is quite possible that Solar Thermal plants w/storage will top out at 150MW but that is not a huge deviation form the plan. It just means we'd build 300 odd towers instead of 230 odd. This wouldn't make any difference to the land area but could reduce some scaling on turbines etc.

That said, it used to be common widsdom that wind turbines wouldn't go beyond 1MWe but now they are available commercially at 7.5MWe and are being tested at 9,10 and 15MWe.

#5 Here is the final point I will address, that just shows how bogus this biased critique from Lang is.

"The Tonopah project is treated as a First-Of-A-Kind (FOAK) plant. Unfortunately the Tonopah plant has only 10 hours of storage [8] not 17 hours as required by the Plan. Grossing up the $10.5 million/MW from 10 hours to 17 hours based on the additional materials needed makes the cost $16.4 million/MW. For comparison, the Gemasolar plant shown in Table 6 has a scaled up cost of $25.7 million/MW.:

We do not need to scale up Tonopah Solar reserve's costs but we change it back to the reference plant. Tonopah is a Solar 75 as a baseload plant. And at that size it costs $9.33 Million per MWe The 10Hours of storage easily becomes 17hours of storage when the turbine is resized down to 75MWe (83MWe gross) from the Tonopah 110MWe (gross) unit

Matthew - sincere thanks for this. I will go through it in a more considered fashion.

I know you think Peter is not worth responding to and I get why - there is no point in direct engagement with such hate and vitriol. BUT the criticisms on BNC (which I have read extensively and others similar elsewhere) do seem plausible - once you strip out Peter's rubbish.

I really think it would advance the discussion if they were dealt with in an item by item fashion somewhere - because at the moment my desk research on the net would suggest that the critiques have more credence than the orginal plan - perhaps only because I can't find anywhere they've been properly dealt with?

Perhaps you and your colleagues could publish a rebuttal of the main critique points?

If it will help I'll try and pull those together in my response afyer I;ve re-read both.

Mark

The chart in this article titled "Nuclear power plant construction cost in the United States – experience and projected" is quite revealing.

The cost estimates vary depending on whether they are coming from advocates (at the low end) or investors (at the high end).

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/nuclear-too-slow-too-expensive-too-simplistic

That is why the argument expressed in some of the comments here that Lang's climate denier, anti-renewable views are irrelevant to his criticism of ZCA is a furphy.

It is also why Matthew Wright's focus in his comments here and elsewhere on the renewable investment that is actually happening (i.e. investors backing their analysis with actual cash) is a more persuasive argument.

Mike - thanks - a useful link. But I'm not sure you;ve interprested it's concuslions properly? (apologies if I've misunderstood).

It's final paragraph states: "If you come across someone who tells you the world should be pursuing nuclear to the exclusion of all other options then tell them they’re dreamin’. But equally if someone tells you that nuclear is too slow and too expensive to consider, ask them for a spreadsheet that explains precisely why. "

and in the next bust last

"Daniel Mullerworth of the Grattan Institute has taken all of these wildly different estimates, and then incorporated the financing costs (‘all-in costs’), and converted it into a cost per megawatt-hour of electricity – which is what we actually consume to power our appliances. If you’re incredibly optimistic and wish to ignore past experience, then nuclear is ridiculously cheap. If you are incredibly pessimistic then nuclear is barely competitive with solar thermal let alone wind. But in the middle of the road nuclear looks reasonably competitive with renewable energy alternatives."

In other words it supports my thesis that both the anti-nukes and pro-dukes are misrepresenting the situation but that - if only considering costs - nuclear is a vaiable option (as part of the mix).

Indeed - this would seem to be James Hanesn's conclusions as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alrxqx_B34s

Mark.

Yes - a pro-nuclear article from Tristan Edis who was described as such by Peter Lang

"Tristan Edis, editor of Climate Spectator, is a far left ideologue."

in one of his usual irrational rants. In so many ways Lang does more to discredit BNC than any anti-nuclear activist could.

Back to the article. The data in the article does not support Edis's conclusion. The "incredibily pessimistic" estimates are not coming from anti-nuclear groups but from the financiers. In any event it highlights the need to be skeptical of the cost estimates coming from the advocates.

Mark. You may be interested in this article.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-19/germany-s-270-billion-renewables-shift-biggest-since-war.html

from the article

"Germany aims to replace 17 nuclear reactors that supplied about a fifth of its electricity with renewables such as solar and wind."

“The German energy transformation is as challenging as the first moon landing,” said Peter Terium, who in July takes over as chief executive officer of RWE, Germany’s second-largest utility.

Thanks, Mike. The opportunity cost of this is enough to make you weep. For $270 billion, the 17 nuclear reactors could be triplicated rather than replaced. Instead of running to stand still, blowing $270 billion on wind to try to make up for an unnecessary atomic shutdown, they could have almost entirely decarbonised their electricity supply.

And it might not even work. The Bloomberg article is peppered with a lot of 'ifs' and phrases like "untested systems and policies" "technical hurdles threatening the project" "difficulty on a number of fronts" "lacks a clear technological solution". Hardly the technological sure thing the likes of BZE have tried to paint it as.

Mark Duffet says

"For $270 billion, the 17 nuclear reactors could be triplicated rather than replaced."

Mark - read the article.

Europe's largest and the world's fourth largest economy has decided to spend the $270 billion on *renewables* not on nuclear reactors.

"Germany aims to replace 17 nuclear reactors that supplied about a fifth of its electricity with renewables such as solar and wind."

Mark Duffet says
"The Bloomberg article is peppered with a lot of 'ifs' and phrases like "untested systems and policies" "technical hurdles threatening the project" "difficulty on a number of fronts" "lacks a clear technological solution"."

Yes - it is going to be challenging. In fact I will give you some quotes in addition to the reference to the "moon landing" reference I gave above.

* If Germany succeeds, it could be a role model for economies all over the world,” said Claudia Kemfert, DIW’s senior energy expert. “If it fails, it will be a disaster for Germany’s politicians, society and economy.”

and

* “The energy transformation is the biggest modernization and infrastructure project in the coming decade,” Roettgen said in a televised speech on March 11. “Whether other countries follow our model will depend on whether we succeed.”

So no underestimation of the difficulties.

The problem is that you and your fellow posters from the anti-renewables brigade conclude that because large-scale deployment of renewables is going to be difficult and challenging, it is therefore *impossible*.

One final quote

* We don’t do this because we think it’s nice, but because we believe we can be successful,” Johannes Teyssen, EON’s chief executive officer, said Dec. 20 in Essen. The German energy experiment, Teyssen said, is “a task that will occupy an entire generation.”

Then why does Barry constantly post throughout the day if his blog is unrelated to his work?

It is clear that Barry does some of his politicking on taxpayer funded University time.

If he wishes to be political that is fine and the right of every Australian citizen, but Australian taxpayers should not (must not) foot the bill.

Here is but a small sample of the massive public log of Barry's activities during times that people would assume he would be otherwise engaged with his work as a climate adaptation specialist and his professorship.

Here is a small sample. Lots of people have a full cache of the history of the BNC blog who can tally up Barry's time out from work to undertake these activities.

Of course it does not include an indication of the time (if any) Barry (your brother??) spends preparing his posts while at his taxpayer funded job.

Barry Brook, on Wed 13 August 2008 at 4:48 PM said:
Barry Brook, on Wed 22 October 2008 at 1:05 PM said:
Barry Brook, on 12 December 2011 at 1:46 PM said:
Barry Brook, on 13 December 2011 at 5:48 PM said:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/
Barry Brook, on 14 March 2011 at 8:20 AM said:
Barry Brook, on 14 March 2011 at 9:12 AM said:
Barry Brook, on 14 March 2011 at 9:21 AM said:
Barry Brook, on 14 March 2011 at 9:53 AM said:
Barry Brook, on 14 March 2011 at 1:16 PM
Barry Brook, on 14 March 2011 at 1:23 PM said:
Barry Brook, on 14 March 2011 at 3:49 PM said:
Barry Brook, on 15 March 2011 at 9:32 AM said:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/13/climate-change-update-by-numbers/
Barry Brook, on 14 July 2011 at 2:25 PM said:
Barry Brook, on 18 July 2011 at 10:29 AM said:

Matthew - that comment is unworthy and a personal attack on Barry who is not here to defend himself.

Regardless of how Barry spends his time and how it is funded it is a cheap shot and in no way invalidates his views or his arguments.

I am a supporter of giving renewables a (major) seat at the table of options for the future though I do have some concerns there is a great deal of wishful thinking rather than data driven evidence put forward by their supporters. But as you will see above I think the evidence is clear they have an important role to play. The debate, I think (which needs to not be personal) is about whether they can provide the whole solution or whether other options (e.g. nuclear) need to be part of the mix.

I am far from alone in the view that the Nuclear option should be considered. To name two prominent persons - James Hansen and James Lovelock.

Surely that view deserves to be treated with respect and argued on the evidence and the merits. The problem of AGW demands such respect.

I don't think the nuclear question is aided by some the vitriolic proponents (of which I do not think there is any evidence Barry Brook is one) but I also think that you do the debate and your own cause a disservice by these sorts of attacks.

You are a proponent for renewable energy. I respect that. You are a key driver and proponent for ZCA. I respect that too.

It is not necessary, nor in my opinion worthy, to validate and prove the usefulness of the ZCA approach by this sort of attack on someone who holds a different view and is prepared to debate it on its merits. I hope you are too.

Mark,

It is clear that those of us who engage in the public debate should do so on our own time and funded the appropriate way. In my own case for instance I quit my high paying job, lived on savings, borrowed and begged got money gifted from friends and relatives.

Barry should not be engaging in public political debate like this on University time when receiving a very healthy tax payer funded salary. If he is, this is a huge problem that needs an investigation from the appropriate University authorities.

I have supplied but a very small log of times that one would expect someone to be engaged in their employment activities when Barry has been posting to his blog. If someone had the resources they would fill many many pages of log.

It is very important that resources (especially taxpayer funded resources) are not misused for personal gain/activities.

I have provided you with 3 or 4 proxies for why the arguments put up by Climate and Renewable deniers Lang et al about Zero Carbon Australia are grossly exaggerated or blatantly wrong and you have given no feeedback as yet on that.

Matthew - 3 things

1) I appreciate the information you have provided but it wasn't that long ago - barely 24 hours - and I have a family life. I think it a bit unreasonable of you to require feedback so quickly. I will go through it

2) You haven't provided your own response to my challenge on here (see below - https://theconversation.edu.au/what-australia-can-learn-from-the-worlds-best-de-carbonisation-policies-5805#comment_27523) but I have not taken you to task on that - it was, after all, only a day ago. I expect you to apply the same standard to me?

3) If you want to make a case that Barry is mis-spending his time - then you can make it (I don't agree but no-matter). But it is a separate issue as you should well know. It is NOT relevant to the merits of the argument about nuclear and renewables and to raise it obfuscates the issue and is not a valid point

Mark,

I have provided you with 4 quick points as a proxy for how bad that critique of climate and renewable denier Lang is. I will leave it at that for now, If you make a reasoned response to that I will comment further.

As for Barry's overtly political activities, they do directly relate to the debate, renewables versus nuclear. If he is using taxpayer funded Adelaide University time to run his blog / blogging for political purposes, those purposes include unsolicited attacks on many people including myself, then that should be a case for the most serious disciplinary action. It is clear cut that I have been defamed on that website on multiple occasions and Barry Brook is the editor, the principal and is therefore legally responsible.

He however chooses to maintain the website as a place of defamatory character assassinations

Matthew - I have done a search on BNC for "Matthew Wright" and received zero hits. It appears you are not even mentioned on the site? Perhaps I am missing something and I am happy to be corrected but what is the basis for your claim to having been defamed?

Why is it "political" for Barry Brooks to run a website to support the cause of nuclear as a viable solution to AGW? If it is why are your efforts on ZCA not political?

I would also point out that you have not in way established a case or refuted my points as to why such a concern is not relevant to the facts of the debate. You merely re-asserted your claim that it is. With due respect I don't find that all persuasive.

The BNC site makes it clear it accepts the reality of AGW so how is it a platform for climate science deniers to promulgate their views? It is clearly a site concerned with the problem of AGW. It just happens to hold different views to you about the best solution. Surely it is in all our interests to properly explore both sides of that debate?

I've briefly read some of Peter Langs posts (e.g. this one http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/ ) and whilst it argues renewables are too costly it seems to do so fairly rigorously and without resort to rhetoric (so at least there he restrains himself or is restrained from his more vigorous attacks calling those who accept the reality of AGW - "alarmists" etc) (unless I've missed it in skimming)

Also - the point on which I have challenged you separately from your 4 points was when you said "It's just cheaper to go renewables.". This claim was unsubstantiated and I have asked you to validate it. It is, in the course of exploring and debating viable options - a reasonable challenge and I did not make it nastily

It is a claimnot supported by, for example, the conclusions reported here http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/nuclear-too-slow-too-expensive-too-simplistic that Mike Hansen referred me to.

I would also point outthat I am not trying to justify any claims as I have not made any. I think it is up to anyone who DOES make a claim to support it.

I do, however, remain patient as to your response as I have asked for your forbearance while I digest your material.

Matthew.

Martin Sevior's comment is my understanding as well. In any event Professor Brook is entitled to be taken at his word when he says that the blog is produced at his own expense - not that it would matter anyway.

You are barking up the wrong tree.

I understand why you feel aggrieved at the vitriol that is directed at renewable energy and renewable energy advocates by regular posters at BNC. Nevertheless you are not doing yourself any favors by your attack on Professor Brook.

You haven't looked very hard if you couldn't find a mention of "Matthew Wright" and this

A search using the google engine for "Matthew Wright" site:bravenewclimate.com certainly shows a few results.

My claims are supported by a 200page book, and countless publications, media appearances, debates, opinion pieces and news/blog comments. What more do you want. I'm not going to spend time responding to the perpetual motion/nuclear extreme right fringe. They're a complete waste of time. Just like the climate deniers (which many of them are) they change colour, shape and form as soon as you prove anything and they shift to some other space but never moving from their pre-conceived ideologically developed position.

Sorry Matthew - I searched on the site itself - not using Google. Obviously it doesn't provide references by posters.

I can see (now that I've used Google) that there are some threads (e.g. this one http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/21/response-to-an-integral-fast-reactor-ifr-critique/) where what started out as a fairly polite debate between you and Barry degenrated a little after Barry took umbrage at you suggesting he had no industry knowlegde. But that harldy consititutes being defamed? When you get the time maybe you can point me to exactly where that happened?

I understand you have much reaserach behind your claims - but surely even you would admit they are able to be challenged? I understand even Mark Diesendorf (a known supporter of renewables) has called some of them into question.

I find it interesting that you are now using exactly the same sort of language as Peter Lang has (who utterly rejects what he calls CAGW) - saying people who disagree are a waste of time etc. I guess I can understand why you might take that view with Peter - I've certainly got nowhere with trying to open a dialogue. But is it really reasonable to place Barry Brooks in the same boat when all his posts on his site suggest simply that he has a genione motivation to solve the problem of AGW with nuclear being an important part of the mix?

You also criticise people for "never moving from... preconceived ideologically developed position". Is your position against nuclear maybe also pre-conceived? Do you conceed the nuclear option has any merits?

Beyond Zero Emissions is a research and education organisation that does comms. It exists to promote transition to a decarbonised economy. This is recognised by the ATO as being a charitable purpose.

However a climate adaptation specialist's job is not to promote nuclear energy. That would be well out side his remit. Fine if the employer was private and the money private, but a big problem if it is your and my tax payers money being put to misuse.

As for the defamation issue. It is quite clear what I said which was " I have been defamed on that website on multiple occasions and Barry Brook is the editor, the principal and is therefore legally responsible."

That does not mean that Barry necessarily was the source of the defamation but he is the publisher and therefore legally is equally responsible. ie from a legal perspective if someone has been defamed on that website then he has equally defamed that person as he did not work to prevent that occurrence or delete the offending material immediately.

Chritsine - that's a great policy - and I am subsrciber to BMC (though I don;t get the time to read all the posts). I have respect for a number of the posters - like Barry and Tom Blees (for example). I like the site. Although I don't always agree with everything on it I recognise it attemptd to deal with the topic with integrity. It has a particular POV (in favour of nuclear as solution to AGW) but it advocates that with transparency and a genuine desire to be data driven

But I have to confess I am struggling with Peter Lang figuring so prominently and reconciling his presence with your policy. I do actually recognise he has a useful contribution to make on the nuclear issue. But your policy states

"If you are pro-nuclear but consider climate change to be some alarmist conspiracy, then you are welcome to frequent other energy blogs that are populated by denialists – there are plenty of them. Go ahead, it’s a free internet."

Peter Lang is on record on the Fukushima anniversary thread as stating"People all over the world are waking up to the CAGW scam". That would seem to mean he is indriect violation of the policy. He certainly has struck me as someone who has a lot of anger in him about the issue of AGW - and it clearly colours his views.

Yet he has and is a prominent guest poster on BNC - including as recently as Feb 9 2012

http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

It seems to me that either BNC is not actually living up to its policy or it has some hard decisions to make about Peter Lang?

Sorry if this is an uncomfortable point to raise and if I am in error but your statements above have raised what to me seems a clear conflict. I welcome your considered response.

Hi Mark
To respond to your question:
The section you quoted:
"If you are pro-nuclear but consider climate change to be some alarmist conspiracy, then you are welcome to frequent other energy blogs that are populated by denialists – there are plenty of them. Go ahead, it’s a free internet."
is a comment by Barry but not actually part of the Comments Policy as you will realise if you check the next sentence:

"Otherwise, stay, enjoy, contribute, and follow the commenting rules:
(which then follow)"
Barry made it clear that, if CC/AGW deniers were willing to desist from espousing their views on BNC, their technical expertise on any source of energy, would be welcome. The same limitation was put on political tirades of any persuasion.
Personally I feel that is a fair position otherwise you are excluding a person from commentating because their beliefs do not align with your own. Those on the right of politics and those who deny the scientific consensus on AGW/CC would be justified in demanding that Barry then banned these people from making tecnical comments. So who would that leave able to comment?
This is my own interpretation of Barry's stance. You would have to ask him to confirm his position.
Thankyou for your supportive comments.

Christine, I'm sorry but that's not a distinction that I think can be sustained. The sentences you posted are word for word what is on the relevant policy statement

http://bravenewclimate.com/about/comments-policy/

It's an integral part of the full policy statement. I do not see how it is possible to argue otherwise and, in my opinion, to do so doesn't promote a good image for you or the site

It explicitly says

"I welcome comments, posts, suggestions and informed debate, from a wide range of perspectives. However, personal attacks, insulting/vulgar posts, or repetitious/false tirades will not be tolerated and can result in moderation or banning. Trolls will be warned, and then banned.

(that's clealy a policy statement and fair enough to - It doesn't say "this next paragraph is just an off the cuff comment by me and isn't really part of the policy")

This is a website for people who are concerned about climate change, first and foremost. It is not set up to pander to any other subset, and if you don’t care about solving climate change (or at the very least if you’re not neutral on the matter), then BNC is not the website for you. If you are pro-nuclear but consider climate change to be some alarmist conspiracy, then you are welcome to frequent other energy blogs that are populated by denialists – there are plenty of them. Go ahead, it’s a free internet.

Otherwise, stay, enjoy, contribute, and follow the commenting rules:'

IF you are trying to argue that the bits that say

"if you don’t care about solving climate change (or at the very least if you’re not neutral on the matter), then BNC is not the website for you. If you are pro-nuclear but consider climate change to be some alarmist conspiracy, then you are welcome to frequent other energy blogs that are populated by denialists – there are plenty of them. Go ahead, it’s a free internet."

isn't really part of the policy then the policy statement, as stated on the site, is misrepresentative.

If it isn't misrepresentative then Peter Lang's avowed statements that he doesn;t care about solving climate change and that those who do are CAGW alarmists should mean he is inviolation of the policy and shouldn;t be posting on the site.

It is a coice for Barry, of course. But it is dilemma of his own making that he needs to address or the entire credibility of the site and his stance is specious - you cannot say one thing and do another on this sort of thing.

That, at least, is my interpretation. If you think differently then please explain why???

Hi Mark
I have given you my view on the matter. Please ask Professor Brook for an explanation if you have a different opinion. I am sure he would be happy to discuss this with you.

It is a great pity that such a good site as The Conversation doesn't make it a policy to delete personal attacks on individuals.
It would also improve the thread if off topic comments, used to shift the focus when the poster can't or won't answer questions and thus muddy the waters, are also deleted.

Christine. I agree with you about the personal attacks.

However I will point out that they started with Luke Weston's comment

"...certain prominent representatives of Beyond Zero Emissions are about as crackpotty as a Tōhoku pottery shop"

and his linking to climate denier (see his references to the "Alarmist’s CAGW scam" above) Peter Lang's posts at BNC to make his point.

Would that be the same parallel universe where James Hansen, Bill Gates, George Monbiot, James Lovelock, Tom Blees, Chuck Till, Yoon Chang and the governments of France, England, China and India(to name just a few rational proponents of nuclear energy) live?
Just a little bit silly Jim.
And while we are on the topic do tell how many non-hydro fossil fuel plants have been replaced worldwide by renewable energy. I can only think of one country - France - where they replaced all their oil burning electricity plants with nuclear power in just 10 years. Could that be why France has the lowest CO2 emissions?
Surely the PRIME objective of FOE and Greenpeace should be to rid the World of CO2 emissions not to promulgate hysteria about nuclear power. Don't tell me renewables can do - not without the gas back-up which you promote. Er,isn't gas a fossil fuel?
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/01/28/two-countries-two-paths-one-crucial-lesson-learned/

Hi Bob - this comment isn't showing below mine about the hydrogen issue but I'm guessing it's a reply?

The nanotube elctrode development also sounds interesting - perhaps we will hear more about this and realted aspects on TC? Hydrogen as a fuel has a key advantage of being relatively energy dense and also burning "cleanly"

Energy density is VERY important. It's one important reason why fossil fuels have been so "successful" - and is also a key advantage of nuclear. It matters because energy density means you simply need less "stuff" (and hence usually less activity associated with the total life cycle) and less space/volume to produce energy. Unfortunately its a big disadvantage of renewables.

The disadvantages (that I know of) with hydrogen are (apart from the leakage problem which shouldn't be underestimated but is amenable to solution perhaps) that - despite it's relative abundance there is a high "energy penalty" with extracting it in a usuable form - so one has to be careful the energy and cost economics don't work against you or in other words the EROI may be bad. This breakthrough sounds it will help with that.

Don't let the unfortunate vitriol from the extremists on both sides put you off a rational consideration of nuclear. If you do some research on deaths (or poor health outcomes) per MWh produced you will see Nuclear (despite the irrational fear mongering) actually performs pretty well

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-human-cost-of-energy

There has been a lot of misinformation spread since Fukushima - but there's an excellent BBC documentary on this that actually looks at the evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vywZ84mixs

And there's this post analysis here
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=japans-post-fukushima-earthquake-health-woes-beyond-radiation

which clearly shows the real tragendy was the earthquake and tsunami and, to some degree, the over-reaction to the dangers of the Daichi power plant failure. NO ONE has been killed by the radiation that was leaked from Fukushima and there are significant doubts about any measureable long term effetcs

I find it fascinating that we call it “The Fukushima Disaster” – yet the earthquake and tsunami (which actually killed the 15,000+ people as opposed to the zero people killed by the reactor disaster ) is really the tohoku earthquake – as it was off this prefecture (north of Fukushima) where the epicentre lay and where most of the people were killed and displaced.

The reality is Fukushima showed, if you look at the WHOLE picture, that modern reactor designs properly managed stand up well even to enormous eathquakes and tsunamis. Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant (some 11-12km away from the so-called Fukushima disaster) which was 10 years younger suffered minimal damage. There were two other nuclear “incidents” of which I am aware associated with the earthquake – a fire in the turbine section of the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant which was soon controlled but the plant was temporarily shut down as a precaution – and at the number 2 reactor at Tōkai Nuclear Power Plant (to the south of Fukushima and similar age or older than Fukushima) which was shut down automatically because it was reported that a cooling system pump for this reactor had stopped working (although a backup was in place and worked). Interestingly both these plants were closer to the coast than Fukushima – the tsunami height on the coast was lower (but only marginally at Onagawa and allowing for the relative inland depth was broadly comparable.

I would suggest opposing nuclear power on the basis of Fukushima (and/or Chernobyl) is like opposing the use of the automobile for personal transport because of the record of the Ford Pinto (which had a distressing tendency to burst into flames if rear ended). We recognize the irrationality of that – we still buy and use automobiles because most of them are well designed and “safe
”.
I think one needs to properly weigh up the risks, pros and cons of all options based on evidence not advocacy- and in relation to nuclear one needs to really understand that, byandlarge, low level radiation exposure is not only harmless it's natural.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/04/08/radiation-levels-explained-an-exposure-infographic/

I'm not trying to downplay the very real concerns of nuclear. They exist and they are real - as some in the industry will acknowledge
http://npsglobal.org/eng/home-mainmenu-1/147-articles/1007-fukushima-mistake-challenge-responding-wisely.html

I'd just like to see them debated rationally and based on real data and evidence. Not the misinformation that unfortunately pervades the internet and the media.

And it's all very well to be pro-renewables (me too) but they still face some serious challenges in terms of actually being able to deliver reliably24/7 and cost effectively unless we are prepared to invest enormous amounts. Wishful thinking is not an answer

By the way - I think you are mixing up your solar. Concentrating Solar power doesn't improve Solar PV - they are two different technologies. CST (or concentrated solar thermal) especially with TES (Thermal Energy Storage) is the "great white hope" of renewables - it doesn't work through conversion of sunlight to electricity - like Solar PV (Solar Photo Voltaic) does. It uses concentrated heat from the sun to boil water to generate electricity through tradiional turbines (just like coal and nuclear boil water). It's a promisingbut still not really commercially proven option although it is coming ahead as a technology and may well be an important option (there are only a few plants of relatively modest capacity and none of them have produced anywhere near their rated capacity 24/7 for extended periods and they are expensive - but they are also constantly developing - worth pursuing as an option I think).

Solar PV, on the other hand, is improving rapidly and is at or near the price point of Grid Parity for domestic rooftops (cost around the same or better than delivered cost to the home of large coal fired plants). I think it is clearly an important option to pursue - especially for domestic where we can adjust/modify our usage patterns to cope with it's shortcomings (no generation at night, poor on cloudy days etc). I don;t think anyone seriouse thinks it's an option to power much industrial applications though
.
As for Germany? Well, yes, I think you are missing something. The challenges they will face are significant. :( http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.348.html
If renewables aren't up to the task there (and that is by no means certain) then the result will be increases in CO2 emissions that the world does NOT need. I would suggest they have taken this approach for political rather than evidence based data reasons. Shutting down existing nuclear capacity in an a heavily industrialsed nation like Germany is almost certain to result in increased CO2 emissions - especially in the short term.
AGW doesn’t need partial solutions. It needs complete ones. I think that means there is a role for nuclear AND a role for renewables - on the evidence I have seen neither will get us there alone