Australian PM: Stop Bullying me About Climate Change, you Science Bullies

February 9, 2020

While Australia has been getting some heavy rain, which is damping down fires, but raising new hazards – Aussie PM Scott Morrison went on the ABC Today Show to complain about being “bullied” by mean greenies from “inner cities” about climate change, insisting that “hazard reduction” was the answer to climate change, not emission reduction.

You don’t have to know every in and out of Australian politics to get the gist – above.

Junkee:

Are you one of those inner-city voters that was under the illusion that putting pressure on the government to act on climate change might make our Prime Minister stop and think?

Well, silly you. This morning he appeared on The Today Show to say he would not be “bullied” into changing his position on climate change by inner-city voters.

Apparently asking our leader to look at the evidence supplied by scientists, economists, fire fighters and other climate change experts is bullying now, ok?

Scott Morrison was discussing the leadership spill within the Nationals party, their coalition partner famous for dismissing climate action.

He said working with the Nationals made sure they delivered “sensible, balanced policies, particularly on things like climate change”. Because pushing for more coal-fired power stations sounds sensible right now.

Twitter proceeded to “bully” the PM some more.

25 Responses to “Australian PM: Stop Bullying me About Climate Change, you Science Bullies”

  1. Sir Charles Says:

    Storms with a speed up to 200km/h approaching Australian coastal cities of now.

    => Global warming will happen faster than we think

  2. Sir Charles Says:

    Australia’s Decade of Burning Environmental Apathy

    The country is paying a deadly price for its conservative politicians’ climate denialism.

    • J4Zonian Says:

      Not just the country, the world; and denialism not least of which is Hansen’s own conservative bias—pushing only reactions that have no hope of changing anything in time. He wants a carbon price that Republicans will never allow to pass and will take years too long to turn the ship, and reactors that can’t be built anywhere near fast enough to replace fossil fuels in time to matter. We need immediate regime change followed by moves to cut war spending and tax mbillionaires to fund the building of clean safe renewable energy. transforming of farming and reversal of deforestation, and the many other investments in a future that we need to make now.

      • jfon Says:

        This graph shows that emissions of CO2 per person in the two European Union countries which most thoroughly nuclearised their power generation – France and Sweden – fell much faster, and further, than those of Germany and Denmark, the biggest proponents of unreliable renewables. Germany and France are both big industrial countries, Sweden and Denmark both cold Nordic ones.
        Austria and Switzerland are both Alpine countries with a good deal of hydro. Both had referenda on nuclear power in 1976. Switzerland voted for by a half a percent; Austria against by the same margin. The result was a lot of coal and gas burnt, and Austria, which started very close to Switzerland, going in the wrong direction for the next twenty years. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=FR-DE-SE-DK-AT-CH
        I could show you similar graphs comparing power sector emissions from Texas and California, big on wind and solar, with Ontario, which built Candu reactors. https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=CA-ON&remote=true
        Current aggregate power emissions – Ontario – 30 grams/kwh.
        – California – 247 g/kwh
        – Texas – 389 g/kwh
        Hansen isn’t a redneck, he’s a scientist – he can read the data as easily as I can. Why can’t you ?

        • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

          You can prove anything with facts ifon.

        • Sir Charles Says:

          How long does it take to build nuclear power plants, and how long does it take to build wind farms?

          • jfon Says:

            ‘How long does it take to build nuclear power plants ?’ The French built enough to cover eighty percent of their demand in twenty years, and Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland built 40% in about the same. Nowadays in the US, a couple of billion will just cover the lawyers who were suing you for being too expensive.
            ‘how long does it take to build wind farms?’ Building the farm is just the start. Germany has been building offshore in the North Sea, but the power lines that would take the current to demand in the South are mired in delays. To make an attempt at dependability, they’d have to extend the lines outside the local weather zone, and build a whole suite of additional turbines – North Africa and Russia might be far enough away. The alternative for calm periods is biomass, whose green credentials are very suspect – immediate emissions are worse than coal. Then the turbines are only designed for a twenty year life – reactors are being licenced for sixty. Nuclear isn’t perfect, but its energy density – two million times better than fossil fuels, and far higher again than any renewable – mean you don’t have to disturb the earth much to get the makings for it.
            Those costings showing how much solar is at midday in Arizona aren’t worth much if you’re in New England on a winter evening. As for how reliable wind is now, here’s production from Germany’s offshore fleet for this month, last year – for about half the month, output from over 3,300 MW capacity was bouncing along mostly below 500. Coal filled the gap, as usual. That won’t stop the government from closing another 8 GW of reliable nuclear with no emissions to atmosphere, over the next three years.
            https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=wind-offshore&year=2019&month=2

          • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

            After all these years, still cannot believe how facts cannot penetrate thik brick walls. The world will burn and dogmatic ideologues will still be fantasizing with wishful thinking.
            The world will burn, do not stand in the way of solutions.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            “The alternative for calm periods is biomass, whose green credentials are very suspect – immediate emissions are worse than coal.”

            Source?

            “Then the turbines are only designed for a twenty year life – reactors are being licenced for sixty.”

            Source?

            Now read what the international lobby organisation for nuclear power states:

            Most nuclear power plants have operating life- times of between 20 and 40 years.

            Click to access 29402043133.pdf

        • Sir Charles Says:

          BTW, nuclear is neither CO2 free, nor a renewable source of energy.

          • jfon Says:

            I see that estimate for nuclear is from Storm van Leeuwin. For a start, if you allow the reactors to run for sixty years instead of euthanising them at thirty, you can immediately halve the emissions for construction, front end, back end and dismantling, per megawatt hour of production. You also double the time to build up a decommissioning fund. He used a capacity factor of 82%, as well, when reactors are now running over 90% in baseload.
            In any case, Storm van Leeuwin et al’s whole modus operandi has been questioned. The anti-nuclear movement, of which he is most definitely a member, spent decades working to increase the price of nuclear. Then van Leeuwin came up with a formula for converting dollars spent to CO2 emissions.
            ‘We compared the predicted energy cost [using Storm van Leeuwen’s study[3]] of Uranium mining and milling for Ranger, Olympic Dam and Rössing to the energy consumption as reported. All are significantly over predicted (5 PJ, 60 PJ and 69 PJ vs 0.8 PJ, 5 PJ and 1 PJ respectively). […]
            The energy consumption is predicted to be so large that is comparable to the energy consumption of a particular sub-section of the economy. In the case of Rössing, the over prediction is larger than the energy consumption of the entire country of Namibia.’ ( Wiki – S van L)

          • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

            Consider Olympic Dam, a huge producer of uranium by world scale. It is an underground rock mine with massive energy consumption to extract uranium. WRONG! If it stopped producing uranium the energy consumption would not decrease by any noticeable amount, because it is a COPPER MINE. Uranium, and gold are extracted as a side issue. A small energy consumption side issue.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            Sigh.

            Once again… Slow. Expensive. Unsafe. Undemocratic. Disequalizing.

            The longer the reactors operate the unsafer they get, from cracking and corroding parts, concretized attitudes and siege mentality in the industry and its regulators.

            The enemy of the perfect
            Since UED—Unexpected Emergency Decommissioning—can be needed at any time including testing, no nuke should ever be started without full coverage for at least 2x the worst-case accident conceivable. As far as I know no nuke has ever had that coverage. The anti unsafe-energy movement could have focused more on that; instead, they implemented the addiction strategy of harm reduction by trying in vain to make reactors safer. Instead of the sane response—taking the movement’s valid criticism to heart and cooperating to make that saferness happen, this most INsane industry fought back with lies, secrecy, capture of government and manipulation of citizenry, and attacks on science, sense, activism, and renewable energy.

            Oddly—or not, given interlocking directorates and aligned class and racial interests—it never unleashed the same attacks against fossil fuels, even though they (through the same but even less ruthful tactics) controlled far more of the market and posed much more of a threat to nukes over the short term. That is, until now. All those acts did what they always do—helped drive the corruption ever deeper until it permeated every cell in the industry and all its officers. And somewhere in that unconsciousness may lurk the knowledge that while fossil fuels can be ginned up to seem compatible with nukes because they can be made to play second fiddle to nukes, solar and wind as part of a hocketed system of renewables will win by exposing the gap between the oligarchy’s professed allegiance to the market religion and its real allegiance to class, race, and crony interests and its underlying compulsion, the bigmanlymachine bias.

            We don’t need baseload any more. We need flexibility, so all the generators can ramp up and down and be connected and disconnected as needed, especially down, when solar and wind are peaking at a much lower price than nukes can ever reach. So nukes’ capacity factor goes down with the shippingports in a death spiral, as coal and gas have. Those are now below cutting edge wind turbines, which continue to improve rapidly.

            Think of it this way: Since we were amoebae, there’s been a tension between stability and mobility. At the best of times a dynamic balance is achieved, as with other pairs of traits. It shows up in the long back and forth military struggle between offense and defense (longbowmen vs. cavalry at Agincourt, Crecy, and Poitiers; WWI trenches vs. WWII blitzkrieg) but it’s ever present in the body and mind. For a long time we’ve yearned for, searched for, and created stability we had in spades in WWI. But in these times of shifting hardiness zones, migrating populations, rising temperatures and falling expectations, we need flexibility. Coal, gas, and nuclear don’t provide it well enough; we need the moving forces of nature in wind, solar, hydro, and for the still-craved stability as a single, small bass note when we need it, we have geothermal.

            Or don’t think at all, just let the truth flow over and through you so your unconscious self can absorb it, and it can do you some good at some point in the distant future, despite your best efforts to remain stuck in the Grimpen mire, trying to wrestle the corium lava out into the open.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            @jfon

            “The alternative for calm periods is biomass, whose green credentials are very suspect – immediate emissions are worse than coal.”

            Source?

            “Then the turbines are only designed for a twenty year life – reactors are being licenced for sixty.”

            Source?

            Now read what the international lobby organisation for nuclear power states:

            Most nuclear power plants have operating life- times of between 20 and 40 years.

            Click to access 29402043133.pdf

          • jfon Says:

            Lifespan of reactors –
            ‘the NRC has granted 20-year license renewals to 74 of the 100 operating reactors in the United States. These reactors may now operate for a total period of 60 years.’ https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=19091
            A number of reactors have applied for further licence extensions to eighty years, and two have already been granted. https://www.wlrn.org/post/nuclear-regulators-extend-life-turkey-point-reactors-80-years
            Emissions from biomass –
            ‘It’s often claimed that biomass is a “low carbon” or “carbon
            neutral” fuel, meaning that carbon emitted by biomass
            burning won’t contribute to climate change. But in fact,
            biomass burning power plants emit 150% the CO2 of coal,
            and 300 – 400% the CO2 of natural gas, per unit energy
            produced.
            These facts are not controversial and are borne out by
            actual air permit numbers. The air permit for the We
            Energies biomass facility (link) at the Domtar paper mill in
            Rothschild, WI, provides an example of how biomass and
            fossil fuel carbon emissions compare. The mill has
            proposed to install a new natural gas boiler alongside a new
            biomass boiler, and presented carbon emission numbers
            for both. The relevant sections of the permit are shown
            below.1
            They reveal that the biomass boiler would emit 6
            times more carbon (at 3,120 lb/MWh) than the adjacent
            natural gas turbine (at 510 lb/MWh). ‘ https://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PFPI-biomass-carbon-accounting-overview_April.pdf
            Proponents argue that regrowth of burnt forests will compensate, but if you want emissions reductions in the next forty years, don’t rely on biomass.

        • Sir Charles Says:

          120 of these boys deliver as much electricity as a nuclear reactor (capacity factor already priced in):

          Far safer, far faster built, far cheaper.

          • jfon Says:

            Your source for aging of nuclear plants is 33 years old. The industry has been able to do a lot of research on the subject since then – including on samples of pressure vessel steel left in a full neutron flux, or irradiated in test reactors. The reactor pressure vessel and the containment dome are the only parts which cannot be replaced – and the Russians have already proved that they can anneal neutron-induced stresses out of the RPV in situ.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            Well, jfon,

            33 years… That makes it about 20 years more up to date than almost everything you think about clean safe renewable energy sources.

  3. Sir Charles Says:

    Take action! Stop Adani’s Carmichael coal and rail project!

    => https://www.marketforces.org.au/info/key-issues/theadanilist/

  4. J4Zonian Says:

    I wonder how many times it has to be shown that the world in which France built its nukes was another world, and trying to recreate that now—in our world of clean, safe, cheap, and ever-cheaper renewables; ever more expensive but still unsafe and uninsurable nukes, increasing unrest; unimaginable, multi-dimensional ecological stress; disastrous inequality—will lead to failure. Apparently more than a dozen because I’m pretty sure we’ve passed reached that.

    False dichotomy: Nook boosting vs. destroying the world with greenhouse gases never was and never will be the choice, and it’s criminally despicable for spent fuel rods to continue using such manipulative deceptions to try to get people to buy into dangerous and unnecessary addictions, obsessions and delusions.

    Cherry picking: The boosters are the ones refusing to look at the data–all the data. (Oh yeah, and they’re just outright lying about it. Given the stakes, it’s absolutely disgusting.)

    Whatever Hansen’s and others’ reasons for putting their faith in a failed technology rather than the technologies that can actually help, the fuel rods are putting theirs in hazy, corporate-person-and-machine hagiography—in the past rather than reality. Nukes can’t help us now, only hinder our efforts to evade the horrific consequences of failing to decarbonize fast enough. Too slow, in every way; too expensive, too everything except what they’re not enough of.

    Inappropriate speed and its attendant carelessness, and grossly patriarchal failed technology with its attendant unpopularity have led not only to 3 virtually inevitable serious disasters and hundreds of near-misses, but to the irretrievably corrupt industry that constantly tries to push a calamitous product on an unwilling world of victims-in-waiting. It will lead to further disasters, and sooner or later, one or more will reach the kind of extreme level of destruction that’s so painful to contemplate even disaster-movie Hollywood refuses to look directly at it. Or we could, as we will, just use renewables because they’re cheaper.

    • jfon Says:

      Thanks for adding ‘hocketed’ and ‘Grimpen’ to my vocabulary. The analogy of wind and solar alternating to take up the tune, and geothermal filling the gaps, assumes God will mostly send one or the other, instead of long periods with neither, alternating with a cacophany of both. Geothermal, though far better than fossils, is not exceptionally clean – there can be CO2 emissions from the bore water, plus arsenic. Varying output to match demand is liable to blow a well casing and junk the whole system, steady is the way to go. Not the dynamic performer you’re looking for to match flighty W & S. ( Some renewable fanboys give the same stopgap role to tidal, which is unfortunately just as manic/depressive – zero to full four times a day, waxing and waning with the month, greatly affected by offshore winds, and very disruptive to marine life, especially birds.)
      Geothermal is not really ‘sustainable’ either – it’s effectively heat mining. Decay of uranium 238, mainly, over hundreds of thousands of years, builds up heat in actinide-bearing rocks such as granite. Fracturing the rock, as with fracking for gas, allows this heat to be leached out of a block over about a human lifetime, after which you need to look for somewhere else to drill. A nuclear reactor has the same energy source, but the timing of release is under control, the actinide is leach mined, mostly, from where it’s abundant, and used where it’s needed, and the energy from fission is about four times more than that from radioactive decay.

      • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

        IFON, you keep bringing up facts, logic and common sense! Such a shame that dogma, ideology and denialism are incapable of absorbing them.
        It is a shame to be reduced to making these comments on a fact based site.

      • J4Zonian Says:

        Conflating enhanced geothermal with simple geothermal and then assuming the worst about the worst, grossly exaggerating the problems with a benign energy source. The compound sin of cherry picking with straw. Besides electrical generation, district heating and cogeneration are ways to integrate (dispatchable) geothermal into the grid, as is, of course, distributed generation. Dispatchability of course is THE main argument spent fuel rods use in favor of nukes, so the double standard against geothermal, CSP, clothesline paradox energies, hydro, biomass and biogas, and other dispatchable renewables is both disturbing and ridiculous, though not remotely surprising.

        It’s plain that jfon simply has an unnatural attraction to nukes. Bitten by an irradiated child when he was a spider, maybe? (Of course, that would suggest he’s not a spider now, so… ?) and constantly serves up imaginary problems with everything else to support his or her imaginary lover, regardless of fact. Ho hum. Just another spent fuel rod shoveling the corium lava. Add double standards and impossible expectations to the long list.

        Sacred defecation, spider man, how many times do we have to explain the workings of an integrated 100% renewable grid before jfon and the other ARFs realize they can’t make any more ARFs by lying about it?

        So once again: Nature does indeed send clean safe renewable energies in ways that even out any gaps between intermittent demand and many-peaked production. Solar peaks on summer middays, although it provides a lot at other times, of course. 24/7 CSP and clothesline paradox energies even more so. Wind peaks most on winter mornings and afternoons, flattening the duck, and at night, although it provides even more than solar at other times, and increasingly so. Hydro peaks in winter and spring, but remains largely dispatchable. Except at peak times, when it can be used to charge batteries or pumped into storage, it can be held back as much as needed to supply needs at the few low times for others. The main advantage of tidal is that it adds yet another rhythm to the mix; at least small amounts of wave and OTEC will soon contribute.

        Distributed generation across wide geographic areas and different weather systems—even offshore wind and solar—evens out most of what’s left. Demand response time-shifts needs to peak times. Rare downtimes for all those can be met with various kinds of storage, small amounts of biomass or biogas generation; slight overbuilding provides back up in a 100% RE system exactly the way it does in a fossil and fissile fuel system…except without the embarrassing meltdowns and millions of deaths from pollution. And the billions of refugees and deaths and millions of extinctions from climate Götterdämmerung. Oh, and the resource curse.

        Jfon keeps doing what s/he always does—defending an indefensible technology and corrupt industry using the only weapon ARFs and nuke boosters have—lies. S/he should stop.

        • jfon Says:

          Here’s an article to cheer you up, J4 – El Hierro, the southernmost part of Europe, going for 100% WWS. It has some advantages – it’s on the same latitude as the Sahara desert for solar, it’s in the trade wind belt for aeolian, there’s a ready-made pumped storage upper tank in the form of a volcanic crater, diesel is expensive, and most importantly, the EU stumped up the funds.
          https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34424606


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: