The simplest form of what gets called entropy, is the dissipation of energy that occurs every time energy is directed to do some work. Energy gets lost when it is used.
Some, to all, of this dissipated energy cannot be regathered or reused without even more energy use and dissipation. It is not worth the effort.
This means that a system without an ‘outside’ source of energy (eg. a human body without food, the Earth without the sun), will eventually run down. No system can generate enough energy to keep itself going forever, it must take energy in from outside itself. This is why there are no perpetual motion machines.
As all organisms, materials and machines which use energy or direct energy to work or movement, or action etc. dissipate energy, wear out, suffer friction or accidents, do not replicate correctly etc, the idea of entropy is also applied to overall dissipation of ‘order’ or ‘functionality’ in the system or in relationships between participants in the system. Growth and development occurs when there is enough energy available for functional participants to build (often increasingly complex and) functional patterns and relationships.
‘Things’ and systems break down because it eventually takes more energy to maintain them than they can gather or direct to repairs, or there is no easy-enough access to external energy. It points to the idea that if ‘processes’ or things are not maintained and repaired they will eventually fall apart, or otherwise change from their ordered or functional relational states. However if the input and direction of energy can be maintained this is less likely, but accidents and breaks in relationships usually accumulate. Participants can end up building an order which is hostile to them and undermines their attempts to maintain and repair the system to which they belong.
It seems habitual for human organizations to become so complicated and complex as they grow that they expand beyond the ability of humans or machines to maintain or repair the functional relationships between participants (not enough energy or time) and head into collapse or decay, or to some new emergent order (if there is enough energy).
It is in some sense possible that the USA is more likely to breakdown through overwhelming infrastructure (bridge, roads sewage, water supplies, electricity cables, etc) breakdowns and misconnections, than from stupid politics. But stupid politics will not help maintain functional relationships, or will direct energy away from the problems.
It is worthwhile starting this description by repeating the slogan, that if an energy transition does not reduce emissions, then it is not worth doing. Even if its cheap and innovative.
In a previous blog, I have tried to demonstrate that Peter Dutton has made a major mistake by saying that “energy is the economy”, and ignoring all the other factors that make the economy.
Dutton also seems to point to a major weakness in his own nuclear argument saying:
The Coalition’s energy policy is the only plan for cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy.
This is an odd argument to make when many people have pointed out the problems with this:
There is no costing of nuclear energy being given by Dutton and his party at all. This implies they do not know for sure it is cheaper.
They merely assert it must be less costly than renewables.
However, we have costings for Renewables from reputable sources that insist they are cheaper than nukes [1], [2], [3, 4] and costs of Renewables has been decreasing.
In the last 20 or so years the costs of nuclear have regularly turned out to be much greater than the builders estimated. Some projects have been discontinued because of this unexpected extra cost, and there can be no guarantee that the next set of projections will not be under-estimates as well.
This greater than expected cost requires an increased the price of electricity to pay the extra cost back.
Claims of cheapness are merely optimism about nuclear and pessimism about everything else.
There are people and companies wanting to build renewables, but Dutton claims that nuclear will have to be paid for by the taxpayers. Any mistakes or bad planning will be costs to taxpayers and there is no competition.
There is no evidence that any private enterprise is even vaguely interested in taking on the costs and dangers of building.
Then, we are trying to build at least 7-14 reactors at the same time. Just as large amounts of normal building cause price increases due to materials and labour shortages, so we can expect such increases from building reactors simultaneously. The only countries with experience of building large numbers of reactors together, at the moment, are China and Russia, and it is probably unlikely that Australians wish to entangle their energy future with either of those countries.
Nuclear also has ongoing costs, not just of keeping complicated systems functional and avoiding fat tail accidents, but of mining, fuel provision, transport and waste disposal.
More importantly, Dutton ignores the time factor:
He makes a big deal of energy costs now (which is high all over the world for many reasons) but nuclear energy would not arrive for at least 15 years (at the very best) and time of construction blow outs seem normal, given other people’s experience, so its likely to be later still.
Therefore, even in the unlikely event nuclear reactors will provide cheap energy, this cheapness is hardly going to relieve price issues now.
We don’t know how long any particular nuclear reactor can exist before the probability of danger overwhelms the probability of benefit. He is estimating 80 years. That is not 80 years of continual action as they need servicing, and at the end of life the cost of decommissioning is usually very expensive and takes a long time. These costs should be factored into the upfront costs rather than being ignored.
Without increasing immediate emissions-reducing power, like renewables, then nuclear will not help reduce emissions, because fossil fuels will have to be used to make up the decline in energy supply as coal phases out. If we don’t start reducing emissions now, then they will accumulate and make climate change worse.
Dutton also ignores the systemic nature of energy.
Even 16 nuclear energy sources will make up a small part of the system, especially by the time they are built, unless we reduce energy usage significantly.
Because they are a small part of the system, even if they were incredibly cheap, it is probably unlikely they will reduce energy prices.
If Australia expands its energy consumption, which is pretty likely, then it almost certainly will need more cabling, even if the nuclear stations use the old coal wires. So one of his arguments for cheapness is likely to be wrong, and the idea that no new cables will be needed shows the inability of the Coalition to look at the system as a whole.
So given this nuclear program is unlikely to reduce emissions, or produce cheaper electricity for a long time, if ever, the main plan for justification is to attack renewables and contemporary prices.
Prices only slowly rose under the Coalition and are massively expensive under Labor. This could be true, but its easy to keep electricity prices even, if you are not doing anything at all to reduce emissions, and think that increasing emissions is actually ok because you deny climate change. He adds to alarm.
The Albanese Government has us on a path towards the hollowing-out of industry and business in our country….. And it’s all because a weak Prime Minister is making decisions aimed at stopping Labor voters defecting to the Greens.,… Labor’s energy policy train wreck is only making it more vital that we include nuclear.
I don’t think anyone with any political awareness, could seriously think Labor is trying to take over Green’s policies. But it does seem from this, that Dutton’s arguments depend on exaggerated rhetoric
Nowhere in the world has a renewables-only policy worked.
This may be true, although people disagree, South Australia will likely shortly become mainly renewables with some gas firming, but no one, certainly not the Labor party is aiming for a Renewables only policy. The question is whether nuclear is the best form of emissions reduction.
He argues:
Germany too has invested heavily in renewables.
Wind and solar account for more than 30 per cent of its mix. But when Russia invaded Ukraine and cut off gas supplies to Europe, Germany was left in a precarious position. It ramped-up its coal-fired power generation.
This shows what many people have said previously, that Germany’s energiewende depended way too heavily on coal, lignite and gas (partly because it did phase out nuclear and energy corporations went for the cheaper and more profitable option of heavily polluting lignite), and Germany should never have made the decision to depend on overseas supplied gas, especially from Russia. However, since then Germany has attempted to boost its Renewable Capacity. It is certainly not going back to nuclear.
As we said earlier the point of the energy transition is not cheapness, although renewables seem cheaper than nuclear, it is emissions reduction. This is almost the only thing that counts. But of course the Coalition use the well known drug dealers defense – ‘We sell good drugs’ – as
[products] will be produced in other countries with weaker environmental standards than Australia.
One interesting part of this speech is that Dutton is almost claiming that nuclear can work with renewables,
The Coalition… sees renewables and nuclear as companions – not competitors, as Labor does.
rather than repeating his earlier position that large-scale renewables will be suppressed and fossil fuels increased to make up for the suppression. How far we can trust this really is a change of anything other than camouflage is uncertain.
The other argument he makes is that renewables are unpopular.
From Bunbury on the west coast to Port Stephens on the east coast, furious residents are protesting offshore wind farms due to their impacts on fishing, tourism and livelihoods….In February and September, farmers flocked to Canberra to rally against the roll-out of industrial scale renewables and transmission lines on their prime agricultural land.
It is correct that there is resistance to wind (in particular), although much of it seems to be about neoliberal implementation practices and lack of consultation or explanation. However there is a political force and encouragement over these protests from the Coalition and from oil company think tanks, and the Coalition, perhaps unsurprisingly, is not interested in encouraging dissent against offshore or onshore mining, that could destroy bore water supplies harm fishing, tourism and so on. Dutton has previously made clear that no protest will be acceptable over nuclear because of “national interest”.
The question arises could Australia use nuclear energy? The answer is clearly yes, but it has to be done along with increasing renewable energy. OR emissions will not decrease, and money is being thrown away for nothing.
By itself nuclear is just expensive and slow to get up. It will need subsidies, if power is to remain cheap and available, whatever the Coalition argue.
There is no point in building 7 nukes, that will almost certainly not produce enough energy to make a difference.
Nuclear is also experimental in the sense that we do not know what will happen when a country with no nuclear power plants tries to build 14 or so at the same time.
More importantly than providing baseload, we need to deal with the problem that large scale solar will produce massive amounts of excess energy which has to be stored. Storage is the number one problem for emissions reduction. If we get enough storage then we might not need ‘baseload.’ However it is also correct we do not know if this is possible at the moment, it just looks probable.
Any kind of transition which actually lowers emissions will be costly, that includes nuclear. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. This possible dishonesty is especially marked when the Coalition have not produced any costings and have simply denied everyone else’s costings with no evidence. Saying that they:
will release our costings in due course – at a time of our choosing. Not at Chris Bowen’s or Anthony Albanese’s choosing – but our choosing
simply implies their costings have been difficult at best, or they want to make sure these costings are not open to long, careful criticism.
Dutton concludes:
Let me conclude on this point; we can’t switch nuclear power on tomorrow – even if the ban is lifted.
Like other countries, we need to ramp-up domestic gas production in the more immediate term to get power prices down and restore stability to our grid.
I think that statement renders the position clear, For the Coalition, nuclear functions to increase emissions now and, likely, forever. Presumably we don’t challenge petrol for cars either. There is no talk of the electrification of everything, or of reducing emissions from other sources. The aim seems to be to keep fossil fuels burning and emissions up.
If there is, as he claims, something visionary about this plan, it is spending lots of money, not changing and everything being ok, probably because climate change is unreal and fossil fuel company profits must be maintained.
The Leader of the Australian Coalition and opposition party made a recent speech I will be returning to. In this post I simply want to discuss a basic error that he opens with, which I think is dangerous.
He starts
Energy isn’t part of the economy.
Energy is the economy.
He attributes the remark to conservative journalist Chris Ullman and the statement could originate with Vaclav Smil, so this is a borrowed and considered statement, not a brain fart.
However, it is pretty obviously not true. Drop a nuclear bomb on Sydney, will any of that energy make an economy, improve Sydney’s economy or make Sydney’s people (as a whole) prosperous? No. It is more likely to immediately destroy processes than to immediately improve them.
Energy is not the economy, energy is vital to and limiting of economies.
It would seem vital to understand that economies and energy come along with:
Social organisation, labour, relations of power and relations of access to energy. These influence the way social wealth is distributed and inhibited. Control over resources such as energy and riches, gives people and organisations power to influence and pattern markets and other parts of society.
Available and directable energy. Unavailable and chaotic energy is rarely beneficial unless ordered and processed. As we have learnt recently, energy can be made unavailable to increase profits and lock in production.
Time constraints. Food has to be eaten before decay. Building something might take too long for it to be useful, when compared to the speed of the threat arising. How quickly can two different processes adjust to change?
Entropy, waste, pollution, increasing disorganisation, or illth. Economies always produce waste and usually produce ‘harms’. Economies can cause levels of destruction which overwhelm their ability to function. The more energy they have, the more destruction and alteration they are capable of.
Transport of goods (requires energy), so they can be traded.
Ecologies, land, food (which is energy), water, resources, and climate. It is best when the ecologies are working in a relatively harmonious systemic way, with humans and each other. A decaying ecology leads to a decaying economy. Ecologies are probably never completely balanced, but hugely unstable ecologies (often as disrupted by humans) are hard, and costly, to live within.
The ways we socially think about and imagine energy, and the way it is used to benefit human life. We may tend to think some apparently unreal energies are real, and that some energy sources are more powerful than they are.
in summary, The Economy is not just energy, but involves a system of systems, which depends on other systems. We have to keep all those systems working reasonably well for survival
These multiple interactions are vital points for understanding an economy, but people generally seem to want to ignore them. The question is why is Mr. Dutton enthusiastic about ignoring them?
I think he tends to answer this in his next passage, which in summary states.
If energy is cheap then all is well. If it is expensive then:
Our manufacturers pay more to produce and package goods.
Our builders pay more to construct homes.
High power prices have inflationary impacts across the economy.
Higher costs are passed on to Australians.
You end up paying more for every product, good and service.
Cheap and consistent energy is critical for more affordable lives and a more prosperous economy.
This is only true if we reduce the complexity of the economy, and refuse to ask what are the consequences of this cheap energy production? What are the power relations in the economy – who gets cheap energy? How destructive is the energy production – what does its pollution do? How available and directable is most of the energy? lots can be wasted. What effects does it have on the rest of the energy system? Does it interfere with other needed energy? What effects, long and short term, does it have on ecologies? How do we think about that energy?
These points make the economy more complex but also more real.
Peter Dutton then asserts that nuclear power is cheap, available and low illth.
He does this by:
Ignoring any costings whatsoever, or any need to pay back huge public expenditure through increasing the cost of electricity or something else.
Ignoring the time taken for construction and development, and what the state of the electricity system will be by the time nuclear is constructed.
Ignoring the issues and costs of waste, breakdown, servicing, decommissioning etc
Ignoring the magical socio-psychological appeals of nuclear. Can 7 to 14 nukes really save Australia from energy problems? Will they both replace coal that is going out of business and provided the extra energy we will need by 2050? (No, they are not even enough to replace the lost coal, it is only because nuclear seems magically powerful that this question can be avoided).
Dutton is still talking about SMRs which do not exist commercially and which are less powerful than standard nukes. This would imply these imaginings have a magical hold on him.
Ignoring any other effects nuclear may have on the economy, ecology, or energy supply, and
Discouraging low-cost low-GHG sources of energy, This discouragement will increase the use of gas and hence the production of GHG emissions.
Even assuming that his “hidden data” does make energy cheap. then a change in energy systems which does not reduce GHGs is not worth the money. So we need to know whether nuclear increases pollution and destruction and so on.
We expect a right wing politician to say the economy is society or that it is the important part of society because it makes business the essential part of society, but saying that we don’t need to think about the effects of different types of energies, involves ignoring everything important to human life and not being prepared for the potentially harmful interaction between systems.
BNEF has just released a paper called “Australia’s nuclear-powered distraction threatens net zero” I will link to it as soon as I can find a link. This is based upon articles about the article
Summary
The issue is not really whether a case could be made for nuclear in Australia, but whether the Coalition policies will deliver:
More emissions, and
More expensive electricity.
That would seem to be the case from the mess of their policy, and their repeated requirement that we trust them to give details after the election.
The plan, even if completely successful will certainly not add that much to Australia’s energy supply, and there is no point going with small amounts of nuclear if we are going to increase emissions through rolling back on renewables.
Political Obstructions?
Despite nuclear energy technology having been banned in Australia since 1998, under Coalition PM, John Howard, with three of the high population states also banning it, the federal Coalition opposition has proposed seven sites for nuclear plants which they claim could be operational as soon as 2035, which is improbable. As Bloomberg states, it will be “a slow and challenging” effort to overturn existing bans, and to force people to accept nukes on the sites selected without consultation.
Nuclear is expensive
Nuclear could reduce emissions, but it is usually a very expensive technology in markets with limited experience, unsupportive politics and uncertain regulation — such as Australia. We have already mentioned that cost overruns are normal even with experienced builders. Another problem is that people cannot be held to contract prices as we do not want cheaply built and unsafe reactors, so we have to assume they are not deliberately underquoting.
Renewables are cheaper and easier
The usual estimates are that renewables are cheaper than Nuclear. Bloomberg said that going by existing nuclear industries in western nations, the cost would be “at least four times greater than the average” for Australian wind and solar plants with storage today.
Furthermore, Australia has plenty of wind and solar resources with large areas of semi-vacant land, and lots of people vying to build wind or solar power. There appears, as yet, to be no one volunteering to build nuclear in Australia, certainly not seven power stations worth by 2035.
To repeat, SMRs do not exist commercially so we have no idea what they would cost, or how much energy they would produce. So it is pointless budgeting for them.
Australia’s coal fired power stations will largely be phased out by 2035. So, to avoid power supply shortfalls and high electricity bills between the gradual shutting down of coal energy and the beginning of nuclear, we have to increase renewables and energy storage. If we do not do this, then electricity prices will increase massively or emissions from Gas will increase.
Nuclear will also add significantly to the costs of energy. To pay off the huge capital investment, which it seems will be carried by taxpayers, prices will have to rise.
Conclusion
if the debate serves as a distraction from scaling-up policy support for renewable energy investment, it will sound the death knell for decarbonisation ambitions – the only reason for Australia to consider going nuclear in the first place.
1) There is no costing at all, except for claiming it is cheaper than Labor’s renewable plan. The CSIRO’s costing are just officially denied. We have no idea of the cost and are not promised a costing.
2) The costs and time frames of nuclear energy production, are notoriously under-estimated even by experienced builders. Australia has never built a nuclear power station, and we are now to build 7 of them (simultaneously?), so we can assume any estimate is an under-estimate.
3) Given that no Australian company will be able to build them, then most of the money for building and supplies will go overseas.
4) The plans seems completely inadequate. The energy generated by seven nukes will not replace the energy from the coal fired power stations that are closing down. On top of that, they clearly cannot supply the extra energy the country may require.
5) Commercially available SMRs are currently hopeful fictions. They may produce about a third of the energy of standard nuclear energy stations. We have no idea what they will cost to build.
6) Dutton apparently thinks a drawing of a building is the same as a ‘concept design’, so his pronouncements that SMRs are viable are hopeful fantasies.
7) The Dutton plan does not care about emissions reduction, and the only reason for altering the energy system is because of the need to reduce emissions. If a plan does not reduce emissions significantly it is a waste of money.
8) There are no plans to reduce emissions from transport or farming.
9) The Dutton plan also seems to involve the suppression of large scale renewables.
10) This suppression plus the inadequacy of the number of reactors, pretty much guarantees that methane burning, and its emissions, will increase to provide the necessary energy.
11) Dutton will scrap the 2030 emissions reduction targets, breaking his own government’s previous agreements at the Paris COP. This, again, illustrates the plan’s lack of concern about emissions reduction. Supposedly net zero will occur after the reactors are built, even though the reactors do not provide significant reduction, gas burning will increase emissions, and other sources of reduction are not being mentioned.
12) Hence it seems plausible to assume that the idea has nothing to do with emissions reduction, other than to distract from it. Therefore it is a complete waste of money, no matter how cheap it is.
13) The Dutton plan for people’s resistance to nuclear is simply to ignore it and suppress it by force or bribery of particular people. However, the Coalition encourages opposition to renewables.
14) There is no comprehensive plan for waste disposal. We can worry about that later.
15) There is no evidence that the proposed sites have enough water for cooling, or that the local environment can handle the heating from taking waste heat.
16) Taxpayers will be responsible for the entire life-time costs of the reactors. It is not clear whether tax payers will get all the profits. Renewable energy is largely financed by the private sector.
17) The economic benefits are asserted rather than proven and would apply to renewables all over the country as well.
18) The Nuclear plan is unlikely to reduce the cost of electricity at all. It will most likely it will boost the price, by stopping the expansion of cheaper low emissions sources, and being inadequate to what is required.
19) Again the nuclear plan will not set Australia on course for net-zero by 2050, or even reduce emissions in any real sense.
It is a complete waste of money and effort, for no obvious benefit.
See the two previous posts on the Australian Coalition’s nuclear energy policy for documentation
The quick summary is that the Coalition’s nuclear plan will not significantly add to energy availability or emissions reduction in Australia. It will, however, cost a lot.
Peter Dutton, the leader of the Australian Opposition, has declared that he has released the policy which will make Australia Nuclear if the Coalition get into government.
The first thing to note is that his policy release is completely uncosted, despite the main scientific organisation in Australia, saying that nuclear would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind and would not be available any sooner than 2040, and previous attacks on CSIRO estimates by the Coalition, with the CSIRO denying those attacks had any validity. Oddly perhaps if Labor released uncosted policies that simply ignored the costings by the CSIRO, then the Coalition and Murdoch media would be jumping up and down in dismay, shouting about irresponsibility. But not now.
Some costs for the newest design large scale reactors:
Construction cost experience with generation 3 nuclear projects in US and Europe
AGL Energy’s CEO Damien Nicks said “There is no viable schedule for the regulation or development of nuclear energy in Australia, and the cost, build time and public opinion are all prohibitive…. Policy certainty is important for companies like AGL and ongoing debate on the matter runs the risk of unnecessarily complicating the long-term investment decisions necessary for the energy transition.””
Andrew Forrest, says “I simply want to see fossil fuels removed from Australia’s energy mix as soon as possible, but as an industrialist, I’ve looked at nuclear and it does not stack up,”
Kyle Mangini, of IMF investments, said it was “virtually impossible” for the private sector to take on the financial risk of building nuclear reactors without taxpayer subsidies. “If you look at where the nuclear facilities are being built globally, they’re almost in all cases being built by governments,” adding “”In Australia, there’s never been a nuclear facility built, so there’s no skilled labour force.”
As we proceed it will become reasonable to suspect that the main aim of the plan is to stop renewables, and keep the fossil fuels burning. The leader of the National party David Littleproud.. [said]
“We want to send the investment signals that there is a cap on where [the Coalition] will go with renewables and where we will put them…. Earlier on Monday [he] told ABC radio the Coalition’s energy policy will show investors Australia doesn’t need “large-scale industrial windfarms, whether they be offshore or onshore”.
As well the Coalition will drop all 2030 targets, and so encourage the build up of emissions, even if they make the 2050 target. The whole point of the change in energy is to reduce GHG emissions. It is doubtful whether this proposed change will do much if anything to reduce those emissions, and emissions reduction is urgent. Over the last year, much to many scientists surprise the average temperature has crossed 1.5 degrees C, reaching 1.63 degrees C. It is likely to cross 2 degrees relatively soon, and then spiral out of control. Innes Willox, chief executive of national employer association Ai Group summarises the policy, by saying:
“With no delivery projected until the middle of the next decade, the proposal does not immediately help with short-term emissions reduction or the cost and reliability of energy in the short term.”
While it maybe true that the reactors are cheaper than Labor’s Plan…. are they a useful source of power and emissions reduction? If they are not, then it is money and time wasted.
The Press Release and after
The Priority is not climate change
The official press release of the policy opens by making it clear the priority is not dealing with climate change
Every Australian deserves and should expect access to cheaper, cleaner and consistent electricity…
Right now, in households and businesses around the country, Labor’s expensive renewables-only approach is failing.
In a classic move, the reason for changing energy systems has been ignored. However, they do recognise one problem with the energy system
90 per cent of baseload electricity, predominantly coal fired power stations, is coming to the end of life over the next decade…
a future Federal Coalition Government will introduce zero-emissions nuclear energy in Australia, which has proven to get electricity prices and emissions down all over the world
Nuclear certainly has not reduced electricity prices everywhere in the world. The unfinished Hinkley Point being an obvious example. However, the propaganda aim seems to be to associate cost of living increases with the current government, imagined cutbacks in fossil fuels, and the rollout of renewables, which is a tactic borrowed from either Trump or his corporate think-tanks. There is no consideration of the inflationary effects of fossil fuel company profiteering, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and hence more competition for gas, or even the local break down of old coal mines and power stations.
Locations
The proposed locations are:
Liddell Power Station, New South Wales
Mount Piper Power Station, New South Wales
Loy Yang Power Stations, Victoria
Tarong Power Station, Queensland
Callide Power Station, Queensland
Northern Power Station, South Australia (SMR only)
Muja Power Station, Western Australia (SMR only)
SMRs do not exist commercially yet.
It appears likely these sites were chosen because they have cabling infrastructure (grid) already in place. Others state:
Some of the sites, particularly Loy Yang in the Latrobe Valley, are very close to earthquake fault lines. Several have no obvious water source, which is essential. They appear to have been chosen for political saleability, not science.
A later comment from Ted O’Brien implies that the Coalition have not even decided the number of reactors involved
Ted O’Brien, who designed the plan, told the ABC’s Insiders the amount of energy generated would depend on the type and number of reactors built at each site, and that neither of those things could be known until a Coalition government could establish a nuclear expert agency to undertake studies.
Rather optimistically Dutton claims the sites “will start producing electricity by 2035 (with small modular reactors) or 2037 (if modern larger plants are found to be the best option).” Again this is with currently non commercially available SMRs, plus clearing all the political and economic barriers which are discussed below. Loy yang one of the sites is not closing until 2034 at the moment, so building could not start until after then. Again the CSIRO estimated the earliest anything could be running would be 2040 given a 12-15 year build.
The latest AEMO integrated system plan “forecasts the retirement of 90% of Australia’s remaining 21 gigawatts of coal generation by 2034-35, with the entire fleet retired by 2038.” To overcome that issue requires plenty of gas backup, or lots of renewables and storage. The Coalition is not saying how much energy they hope their nukes will generate or how they plan to make up the gap, but given the announced hostility to renewables, the plan most likely depends on gas as a major source and not a backup. Ted O’Brien said the obvious solution to the collapse of Coal was to “pour more gas into the market” but also said he would “welcome all renewables”. So their plan is to increase emissions, and it seems obvious that parts of the Coalition do not want more renewables, and more renewables is not part of the plan
AEMO is worried that renewables are not being rolled out fast enough to fill in the gaps in 2024-5, and nuclear cannot be ready in that time. It will be interesting to see what happens there. The climate council says:
Seven standard nuclear reactors would deliver approximately nine gigawatts of energy capacity [possibly more than that depending on design and what you are counting]. While [AEMO claims] Australia will need at least 300 gigawatts by 2050
We apparently use 22 GW of coal at present, so the planned nukes are unlikely to even replace coal use now, never mind the energy from other sources.
O’Brien strangely argued that “Australia already is a nuclear nation. We know that nuclear technology saves lives, we know that because we have a nuclear reactor operating here in Sydney. It’s been operating for decades, saving lives, especially diagnosing and treating cancers.” However, there is a massive difference between the size and complexity of Lucas Heights and that of a nuclear power station
“It must be recognised that this is a ‘zero-power’ pool reactor where the complexities of high pressure, high power, high radiation environments do not exist.”
People who moved into the reactor’s area, already knowing it was there, have objected to its presence for a long time. Even a small reactor is not accepted by everyone.
The big question, however, is what level of energy will these 7 reactors provide? And the answer appears to be “completely inadequate.”
Ownership, Funding and Control?
In a later interview/speech Dutton said:
The assets will be owned by the Commonwealth – a very important point – and we’ll work with experts to deliver these programmes…… [and] The Australian Government will own these assets, but form partnerships with experienced nuclear companies to build and operate them.
So taxpayers will be funding the building, and probably covering decommissioning and insurance. This will be expensive, and how will it be paid for? By increasing taxes, increasing the deficit, decreasing Medibank or social security, or getting huge loans? Hopefully the reactors will not be given to the private sector after the taxpayers have funded them, although the second statement implies they may be run privately, but we have no idea who will be involved. The main builders currently in operation are Russian and Chinese, who we might assume would not be acceptable.
On the other hand Renewables are under private, community or household funding and control, which is usually said to be a good thing.
We also need to remember that nuclear is potentially dangerous and we need heaps of trained and experienced people, and good regulation for Australian circumstances, to keep it safe and to cover fuel handling at all stages.
Supposed Economic Benefits
The sales pitch is that:
Not only will local communities benefit from high paying, multi-generational jobs but communities will be empowered to maximise the benefits from hosting an asset of national importance by way of:
A multi-billion dollar facility guaranteeing high-paying jobs for generations to come;
An integrated economic development zone to attract manufacturing, value-add and high-tech industry; and
A regional deal unlocking investment in modern infrastructure, services and community priorities. Press release
The leader of the Nationals promoted the idea that this plan would be beneficial for rural economies. Apparently locally owned and controlled renewables are not. Susan Ley again emphasised the economic side saying “So, our vision is to make sure that we underpin our economic success with jobs for decades to come in industries where Australia has that competitive advantage.” She did not say what the advantage would be. Ted O’Brien said “Labor is turning the lights out. Prices will soar, jobs will be shed and industries will collapse. Australians will be left poorer and our nation weaker.” LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION – TRANSCRIPT – JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE WITH THE HON DAVID LITTLEPROUD MP, THE HON SUSSAN LEY MP, THE HON ANGUS TAYLOR MP AND MR TED O’BRIEN MP, SYDNEY
However:
A 2023 PricewaterhouseCoopers report into offshore wind found the energy source was expected to add $40bn to GDP between 2027 and 2040, supporting 19,000 jobs in the peak of construction and 7000 to 14,000 operational roles in regional areas. According to International Energy Agency estimates, 17.5 gigawatts of offshore wind will be added to global capacity in 2024 compared with around 8.5GW of gross nuclear capacity
Coalition at odds on energy strategy. The Australian 19 June 2024: 4
Part of the promotion is that renewables are a “wrecking ball through the Australian economy” and that families “know it because it’s harder in their own budgets”, Again the plan is to associate the current multi-causal world wide inflation with Labor’s renewables’ policy. However,
Dr Dylan McConnell, an energy systems analyst at the University of New South Wales, says only about $100 of a household’s annual electricity bill is made up of charges related to environmental programs, such as feed-in-tariffs for rooftop solar or financial incentives for large-scale renewables projects.
[and] In the last quarter, the biggest price rises were in rents, secondary education, tertiary education and medical and hospital services… insurance premiums have gone up 16.4% in the last year… ABS data also shows electricity prices are a small part of Australian household expenditure, at just 2.36% of overall costs.
And the Coalition’s programme not only seems to include 7 expensive reactors, but to need back up in terms of more coal or gas because those reactors will not replace lost coal generation and will not make up for lost renewables. All of this will put more financial strain on taxpayers and customers as they cost more than renewables as will be discussed in the next section. The price is usually set in Australia by the most costly source, so relying more on gas than on renewables, will boost electricity prices. At the best, the prosed nuclear sites will do nothing to reduce the current increase in prices as they won’t exist for some while. So the Coalition’s implied end of rising electricity prices is false.
Problems
An ex-Prime Minister writes:
A nuclear power plant would face the same economic challenges that coal-fired generators do now – for much of the day it would be unable to compete with solar and wind. During those times of excess supply the nuclear plant would add to the excess. That surplus electricity would be taken up by batteries and pumped hydro which would then compete with the nuclear plant during the night.
So the only way the economics of a nuclear plant could be assured in our market would be for the rollout of solar and wind to be constrained. That seems to be Dutton’s intention
So unless renewables are destroyed nuclear may not be profitable.
The Coalition’s lack of costing is obvious, except to insist seven nuclear stations are cheaper than near 100% renewables. However, in one interview the leader of the Nationals was asked how much the plan will cost and whether it was around the CSIRO’s $8.5 billion to $17 billion estimate. He replied “Yeah, look, we’re not disputing that,” (Nationals leader pressed on how much nuclear will cost Aussies).
The lack of costing also does not include the cost of climate disruptions, fires, floods, droughts, heat deaths etc. They also say that “the investment that we’re making, it’s over an 80 year period” which might imply that they are going to build these 7 reactors very slowly. We don’t know as there is no timeline for the building. We have no estimation of the cost of electricity produced by nuclear power despite the CSIRO estimating it would be over 50% more than renewable energy. We don’t know what reactor types are involved, including the experimental SMRs, we don’t know about waste disposal (waste will be kept on site until it isn’t), we have no plans for emissions reduction in the rest of the economy (so talking of 2050 net zero is fantasy). We don’t know who are the likely builders and it is foolish to expect that nuclear energy can be built by Australian companies so campaigning for nuclear energy is campaigning to export billions of Australian money overseas. And, as argued above, nuclear as proposed by the Coalition will only partially replace current coal power. It will not supply the new energy Australia needs. There is a massive gap which we can presume will require more fossil fuels to fill.
in March 2023 Dutton said:
I don’t support the establishment of big nuclear facilities here at all, I’m opposed to it, but for the small modular reactors, we can have them essentially replacing brownfield sites now, so you can turn coal off and put the small modular reactors in and it’s essentially a plug and play. You can use the existing distribution networks
But that was a year ago…. and he may have realised that SMRs are largely fiction and not high energy sources able to replace coal power. An SMR is expected to produce 300 Megawatt electric (MWe) producing 7.2 million kWh per day, less than a third of a large scale reactor at 1,000 MWe producing 24 million kWh per day. So if we don’t go with 5 normal reactors we would have to have over 15 SMRs to replace them. In any case the 5 large scale rectors and 2 SMRs would, according to Simon Holmes a Court, “be expected to generate 50 TWh a year – less than 15% of the new generation needed”.
I have encountered arguments which suggest that submarines have SMR’s. However we have had nuclear submarines since 1958, so we have had them for at least 60 years. No one, not even the military, has appeared to successfully use them on land, and this is despite various militaries having had no problem using long term poisons and mutagens, even when their own troops could not be protected. Whatever, the reason it has not discouraged large scale nuclear building, so there is no reason to think the conversion would be easy or even plausible.
While the Coalition encourages local communities to oppose renewable energy, it appears they may not tolerate opposition to gas, oil or nuclear. The Deputy leader of the Nationals stated “if a community is absolutely adamant then we will not proceed but we will not be looking beyond these seven sites,” to which David Littleproud (the leader) said:
“No, she is not correct,… We made this very clear. Peter Dutton and David Littleproud as part of a Coalition government is prepared to make the tough decisions in the national interest.
To be confusing he also talked about “proper consultation.” In 2019 Ted Obrien in an official Coalition Government media release said:
“Australia should say a definite ‘No’ to old nuclear technologies but a conditional ‘Yes’ to new and emerging technologies such as small modular reactors.
“And most importantly,” said Mr O’Brien “the Australian people should be at the centre of any approval process”
I presume they are intending a neoliberal consultation in which people are told what is happening and ignored, and local businesses bribed. They would also have to deal with the issue that property values would likely decline near the site, although that can be dealt with by telling people that it is their problem.
Importantly there is Federal legislation forbidding nuclear power. Its not clear how changes to that legislation would pass through the Senate. Various states also have legislation (nuclear power is banned in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland), and even the Coalition at state level is not welcoming the project. According to The Australian, Queensland LNP leader David Crisafulli has ruled out lifting the state’s nuclear ban if he wins the Queensland election in October (Coalition at odds on energy strategy. 19 June 2024: 4). The main plan to overcome the problem seems to be bribery (“Somebody famously said ‘I would not stand between the premier and a bucket of money’,”). However Dutton has implied several times that consultation could just involve the Commonwealth overruling the States, again an authoritarian neoliberal consultation process.
However, it is perhaps not surprising that the Minerals Council of Australia (the mining company Union) is in favour of nuclear but wants the ‘free market’ to sort it out, which effectively opposes the idea of government ownership (Tania Constable, End the ban on nuclear energy, and let the marketplace sort it out. The Australian 19 June 2024: 20). So they don’t have complete support from the plan there.
Apparently:
The United Arab Emirates is often put forward of an example Australia could follow. It took just 13 years to connect its first nuclear power plant, and is the only country in the world that has managed to successfully build nuclear from scratch in the last 30 years.
It is obviously not easy to do and that is 13 years after clearing all the political hurdles in Australia, If the Coalition gets in in 2025, and we assume 1 year to get the politics, money, ‘consultation,’ site acquisition, choosing builders and training workers out of the way, and start building, then it would be absolute best practice to have it running by 2039 – somewhat more in keeping the the CSIRO’s predictions that the Dutton predictions. However, Ted O’Brien and David Littleproud are now flagging that there might be two and a half years of local community consultation before the site details were finalised, although communities could not veto the sites. So that adds another year to year and a half to readiness times, making the best practice date 2040, not 2035-37 as promised.
The level of Coalition competence on design is also not impressive. Peter Dutton tweeted that:
“This [image] is the concept design of a zero emissions small modular reactor [SMR].”
This seems frighteningly naïve when it comes to any complex and potentially deadly technology.
That picture is not a concept design for an SMR, it is just a design for a building and setting, which might hold an SMR, a library, a country restaurant, or a cheese display.
A concept design would tell us something about how the SMR is supposed to work, what the materials it will be constructed out of are, what the cooling system is, what the safety system is, where the uranium and waste is stored etc…. You may note that this ‘concept design’ does not even have a fence, it is that insecure and open to terrorist attacks…. this is an empty fantasy drawing, not a design of any practical value.
Foreign Policy
It may now happen that our neighbours think we are going to acquire nuclear weaponry, a normal product of nuclear power, and make moves to defend themselves. This is not fiction. When the Coalition decided to buy nuclear submarines from the US
the US made it plain to senior members of the Morrison government that if there was any suggestion the submarine deal could precipitate any broader policy change in Australia – anything at all that could generate speculation about acquiring nuclear weapons, no matter how fanciful – the deal was off. It must not, under any circumstances, give rise to any extraneous suggestion that the US was bending non-proliferation rules.
That included any talk of establishing a civil nuclear industry.
So they broke their agreement and are now using the argument that nuclear powered submarines are safe, to imply nuclear energy is always safe.
Nuclear vs Renewables.
Apart from over-optimism, and abandonment of emissions reduction, the problems for nuclear and renewables come down to:
Which technology reduces emissions with most speed
How much energy do we need? Can either supply that amounts
Which is most cost effective
Can an economy run on renewables
Which produces less long term environmental problems
What kind of social organisation is required for either of them
Going backwards
6) Renewables will be obstructed by fossil fuel companies for several reasons; the first is the obvious that renewables almost immediately start reducing emissions and the need to make emissions, and potentially cause loss of profit for fossil fuel companies and leave investments in fossil fuels stranded, as they replace fossil fuels. In this policy, it seems that Nuclear as planned does not reduce emissions; it may increase them as gas is used for backup with inadequate power generation. Renewables also allow the slow and modular building of Community controlled energy supplies, local level energy, resilience if they can function when the grid is down, and give the community political power and local finance, as money does not leave the local area. Renewables can be used to encourage independence, local political engagement and choice. Nuclear does not, it remains under outside control. Given the Coalition’s apparent hostility to renewables, the aim seems to be to keep centralised control, fossil fuel company profits and corporate power rather than to solve the emissions problem. In fact there is no real sense from the nuclear position that pollution and emissions are a problem. So it may be that neoliberal corporate dominance is one of many systems incompatible with solving the challenge of climate change, and hence needs to be curtailed.
5) Both nuclear and renewables disrupt environments. Renewables can be built so that farming can continue. Wind farms can also be built offshore and are likely to acts as artificial reefs and attract marine life to boost fishing and tourism. With proper design renewables should create little non-recyclable waste, but that does require the right designs. Nuclear requires ongoing costs of fuel and damage from mining, transport of radioactive supplies and waste, often through residential areas. Waste needs safe storage, and nuclear involves very expensive decommissioning at the end of its life because of high risk to those cleaning up and the local environment. Nuclear portends continued threats to environments.
4) It is possible that a modern corporate economy cannot run on renewables, but then a modern corporate economy cannot run on only 7 nukes. A modern corporate economy cannot run with climate change worsening either. Renewables are expandable, so they might be able to deal with the energy requirements. We might just have to change the economy and lower energy requirements, but that will involve a lot of struggle.
3) The CSIRO is clear on cost. Renewables are far more cost effective than nuclear. Nuclear cost blowouts are apparently worse than cost blowouts for the Olympics. Renewables are cheaper to install even including storage and cables. If well designed they should allow farming. I would rather trust the CSIRO’s estimates than those of a politician who is not itemizing the costs, and may never itemize them. As a further statement, Tim Buckley, director of thinktank Climate Energy Finance says:
“The international experience shows that the western nuclear industry is plagued with massive delays and cost blowouts,”… noting the Vogtle nuclear power plant expansion in the US blew out to cost $35bn, while Britain’s Hinkley Point C plant has been delayed to 2031 and is on track to cost £33bn pounds ($63bn).
2) The question of the energy we need is hard to answer, because this changes all the time. If we have to change the economy, then we change the energy we need. Earlier I mentioned that coal is fading out, and we may need 300GW in the 2030s. This energy cannot be delivered by 7 nukes. It might be that the ideal solution is to develop both nuclear and renewables, but it seems clear that the Coalition does not want to do this, they want to restrict renewables and support gas as with their technology neutral gas led recovery from Covid. Again we may need to change the economy to survive.
1) Either technology could reduce emissions, if the policy and the technology is well designed and implemented. Again the problem seems to be that with only 7 nukes the Coalition’s policy is not designed to reduce emissions. It seems to be designed to generate more gas use at great expense to taxpayers. So the chance of using nuclear and renewables together has been abandoned.
The Conspiracy?
The Dutton nuclear plan
bear a striking resemblance to a policy Trevor St Baker and SMR Nuclear Technology have been advocating for several years, in evidence and submissions to federal and state parliamentary committees, in think tanks and in energy forums.
[St Baker is a patron of the extremely wealthy] Coalition for Conservation, One of its aims is to reach out to environmentalists, renewable energy experts and climate scientists to garner support for Coalition members
I’m not absolutely against nuclear energy, it could be really useful, but I am against nuclear energy when its being used as:
a) a distraction from reducing emissions;
b) in support of continued fossil fuel burning and;
c) to disrupt the replacement of fossil fuels by renewables.
All of these factors seem to be features of Dutton’s policy. The policy will not produce enough energy to make a difference to emissions. It will at best, and probably not at all, generate enough energy to replace some of the phased out coal. We probably need to build at least 40 full scale nukes with continuing expansion of renewables to make a difference; with no sign of that level of build out and the suppression of large scale renewables, the only way to give Australia the energy it wants is through more gas burning. There seems to be no guarantee that the plans can get through the various governmental oppositions. There is no evidence to suggest that it is really intended to. Chucking out the 2030 targets because they are too difficult, suggests that the 2050 targets will become too difficult too, which is great for fossil fuel companies. If the Coalition wanted nuclear to be successful they should have started about 20 years ago.
However, while some people say the deception is easily seen through, Dutton’s choice is not a death wish. He will get funding from mining and fossil fuel companies, he will get corporate and pro-Trump think tanks churning out material to justify him and clog social media. He will get support from Murdoch and probably most of the rest of the media. He will get unity in his Party, and he may even get some Russian and Chinese support through social media.
But then, taking a cue from the Anti-Voice campaign, which is much more appropriate for this policy at the moment….. Peter Dutton wrote:
“In refusing to provide basic information and answer reasonable questions on the Voice, you are treating the Australian people like mugs… your approach will ensure a dangerous and divisive debate grounded in hearsay and misinformation.”
As a neoliberal, Trump gets really upset about climate change being used ‘politically’ to encourage energy transition, cut back the burning of fossil fuels, helping electric cars or promoting corporate responsibility. The only responsibility that Corporations have is to make money, and that can never destroy their ability to survive.
To Recap: Agenda 47 gives Trump’s official policies, many of which are also present in the corporate manifesto Project 2025. They seem to be heavily oriented towards crushing dissent.
This section considers his ecological and climate attitudes.
Against Corporate Responsibility and Shareholder action
He makes it clear by his non-political support of free speech that it should be forbidden for shareholders to ask companies not to destroy the environment. The sole moral responsibility of companies is to make profit. That’s all; not to be safe for workers, not protect the communities they operate in, not consider the effects of their actions on others, or whatever, just make profit.
When President Trump returns to the White House, he will immediately ban ESG [Environmental, social, and governance] investments through executive order and work with Congress to enact a permanent ban.
“When I’m back in the White House, I will sign an executive order and, with Congress’ support, a law to keep politics away from America’s retirement accounts forever.”
The entire ESG scheme is designed to funnel your retirement money to the maniacs on the radical left.
But pensions and retirement accounts with his radicalism and incompetence, they’re going down and they’re going down big and nobody’s seen anything like it.
I will demand that funds invest your money to help you, not them, but to help you. Not to help the radical left communists, because that’s exactly what they are. I will once again protect our seniors, just like I did before, from the woke left and the woke left is bad news. They destroy countries.
ESG simply means asking companies not to destroy the environment that people (including old people) live in, to pay fair wages, not defraud people, adhere to labour laws, factor in the risks of their actions and be transparent and responsible. However, this will be prevented.
Under Trumps laws, no one, including shareholders will be able to ask companies to stop destroying things or poisoning people, apparently because not destroying things and not exploiting workers, is a radical leftism which destroys countries. It should also be remembered that shareholders are company owners, and that if they cannot influence what their companies do, other than support them going for more profit, then that is a fairly odd definition of capitalist property rights.
It seems that, for Trump, it is disloyal to America to challenge corporate power, while siding with corporate power is completely non-political. All those who disagree are “radical left communists, because that’s exactly what they are.” Asking companies to disclose climate risks is also criminal.
Against Recognising Corporate Climate Risk
In May 2021, Biden issued an Executive Order that required federal agencies to define “climate-related financial risk to the financial stability of the… U.S. financial system” which led the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require private companies to publicly disclose climate-related risks.
This ruling will force companies to share with investors their estimated impact on the environment, which will allow climate crusaders in investment firms to punish companies that do not conform to their radical environmental agenda.
Apparently looking at climate related risk is too big a risk for corporate liberty to pollute and harm people, to be requested.
More Fossil Fuels
Given Trump being against people acting within the normal rules of capitalism, and effectively putting an end to shareholder motions requesting responsibility, it is not surprising that his energy policy is more fossil fuels, despite the warnings about what this will produce.
He states:
“Joe Biden’s war on American energy is one of the key drivers of the worst inflation in 58 years, and it’s hitting every single American family very, very hard… Biden reversed every action I took that achieved energy independence and soon we were going to be energy dominant all over the world.”
Let us ignore that Biden has pushed for the greatest expansion of American fossil fuel production ever, and presided over huge increases in profits for oil companies [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]: that is not enough for Trump.
Nobody has more liquid gold under their feet than the United States of America. And we will use it and profit by it and live with it. And we will be rich again and we will be happy again. And we will be proud again. Thank you very much.
So lets burn more oil and make things harder for non-rich people by encouraging climate change.
On Day One, President Trump will rescind every one of Joe Biden’s industry-killing, jobs-killing, pro-China and anti-American electricity regulations.
China is being made into an enemy, and trying to go against Republican fossil fuel ideology is traitorous.
President Trump will DRILL, BABY, DRILL.
President Trump will remove all red tape that is leaving oil and natural gas projects stranded, including speeding up approval of natural gas pipelines into the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New York.
Yes we don’t have to worry about whether going after shale oil and gas will damage people, water or whatever, we just have to support fossil fuels and the profits they generate. People who might think this is not automatically good, or who protest, will presumably be told they are not real Americans but woke Marxists, and removed.
Stopping Legal Protest
President Trump will stop the wave of frivolous litigation from environmental extremists that hold up critical energy development projects for years, increase project costs, and discourage future development.
It should not be a surprise to find out that people’s legal ability to protest and disagree with the demands of corporations is denounced as illegitimate and to be prevented. People should obey and curb their speech before their masters. They know nothing, and should have no power to disagree.
Against Climate Agreements and China
Biden is bad because:
he reentered the horrendous Paris Climate Accord, so unfair to the United States, good for other countries, so bad for us. He put up huge roadblocks to new oil, gas and coal production and much, much more…. The country that now benefits most from Joe Biden’s radical left Green New Deal is China.
President Trump will once again exit the horrendously unfair Paris Climate Accords and oppose all of the radical left’s Green New Deal policies that are designed to shut down the development of America’s abundant energy resources, which exceed any country’s in the world, including Russia and Saudi Arabia.
We know by now that we should not expect evidence, but the point seems to be that the current COP agreement involves possible cuts to fossil fuel production, and thus should be repudiated, no matter what the consequences. Corporate profit is the fundamentally important thing. Oddly he uses a justice argument to excuse this, the agreement is unfair…. Fairness presumably means powerful people and countries should do what they like. I guess that by attacking the ‘green new deal’ he is objecting to providing jobs by helping the energy transition. Fossil fuels have to remain the main source of US energy.
As you know, China paid hundreds of billions of dollars to the United States when I was president.
I presume this means the tariffs on Chinese goods, which Americans paid, not the Chinese. It is possible that China lost some deals, but they did not directly pay any money to the US because of the tariffs. We might hope a President would realise this, so I suspect the idea he is referring to tariffs is wrong.
Against EVs
Trump is opposed to electric cars, and people making a choice.
Because EVs cost an average of TWICE as much as gas-powered vehicles, take longer to fully charge, and have shorter ranges, almost two-thirds of Americans prefer their next car purchase to be a gas-powered vehicle, nearly half of all car dealerships would never sell an EV, and about half of current EV owners plan to switch back to a gas-powered car.
This is probably one reason why Elon Musk is attempting to cozy up to Trump. He realises that if Biden wins, he will be no worse off, but if Trump wins, EVs might be banned or taxed or put out of action, to protect fossil fuels.
Carbon Capture and Storage
Trump does make a few sensible statements.
According to two 2022 studies, the vast majority of CCS projects have underperformed or failed to date and hydrogen blending is plagued with safety and effectiveness concerns
This is true, but in context, it means that even symbolic attempts to reduce emissions should not be allowed.
So in summary:
Basically most of Trump’s Agenda 47 policies take the attitude that anyone who disagrees with him should be dismissed, punished, or prevented from acting.
This does imply that, whether he claims to be or not, he will act as a dictator and attempt to purge the USA of the liberty of dissent, and prolong ecological destruction and climate change.
Agenda 47 makes clear:
Trump is fighting non-existent ‘communists’, and those he calls ‘woke.’ Both terms seem to mean people he does not like or who disagree with him.
He is enthusiastic about protecting America from free speech he does not like.
People who disagree or inconvenience him are not real Americans.
The DoJ should support him, and the Party, alone, and go after people he does not like.
Education should only reinforce Republican doctrine as anything else is political.
Attempts to recognise that the USA has a history of racism, are racist.
Corporations should have free rip, particularly oil companies, and people (even shareholders) should not be free to object to corporate behavior, or attempt to alter it it.
He opposes any ideas that people should protect America (or the world) from environmental destruction, as such protection is Marxist.
Fossil fuels must be the only energy source to be protected.
He wants to stack the government with pro-Trumpists so he will never hear anything he does not like..
This, seems a complete recipe for destruction. Under Trump the USA will not face its real problems, although it may try to crush people who recognize those problems as only Marxists and Woke people would notice them and want to solve them.
Systems theory implies that humans, societies, ecologies, and biochemical functioning make up one vast interactive system affecting each other, even if not in harmony.
Humans are part of this. They are not currently independent of earth functions, or of Gaia if you prefer.
Dominant systems of human social action seem to be disrupting planetary systems and breaking ‘planetary boundaries‘. One of these disruptions is the generation of climate change via the burning of fossil fuels for energy, and cheap but harmful agricultural practices.
There are many intersecting systems which influence each other – not only the ecological systems, but the human systems of energy, technology, illth [1], economics/power, information and social psychology. All of these seem stretched to breaking point. Economics and power is shoveling riches and power to the hyper-rich, information is becoming propaganda and defense, energy is breaking due to peak oil and the energy that will be needed to transform to renewables to stop system collapse. New technologies like 3 D printing, AI, Genetic Modification are likely to have systemic effects.
The complexity of these systems makes prediction, knowledge and co-ordination difficult. We do know that the current interactions are likely to be disruptive and cause struggles between social groups.
Small changes can make large differences. Tipping points accumulate and cascade throughout the system.
Unintended consequences of action and policy are normal, hence political action should be considered as an experiment, and unintended consequences be looked for rather than dismissed.
People at different places in the system will perceive things differently. Hence a functional information system is required, which we do not seem to be able to organise, partly because capitalism seems to depend on inaccurate information (advertising, hype, PR, marketing, misdirection etc are market tactics).
In complexity, ‘Knowledge’ is always a simplification.
Simplification leads to unconsciousness as well as awareness. Knowledge is paradoxically both necessary and a possible misdirection.
Uncertainty is normal and should be recognised.
The only accurate model of the system is the system itself.
Diversity can help survival by allowing a multitude of experimental responses to change.
Suppression of diversity reduces resilience and adaptive capacity, even if it helps administration, because diversity can hinder centralised governance. Everything nowadays should be run like a business, irrespective of whether that is appropriate or not.
Government in complex systems appears distributed, and it is easy to avoid responsibility, or try and freeload onto others. The problems of co-ordinated action are boosted if everyone has to agree to a strategy for it to work – such as not increasing fossil fuel consumption, and then phasing it down. those who don’t agree will maintain what appear to be advantages.
Even the ultra powerful can feel stymied.
Challenges and Avoidence
Societies and individuals regularly face challenges.
Turning away from these challenges to try and maintain the status quo or ‘elite consciousness and knowledge’ (social egos), does not help survival, mental health, or future progression.
During their development, societies have produced ‘resolution sets’ which have solved, postponed or hidden past challenges.
Resolution sets include types of technology and the elites that have commanded those technologies and used them in particular ways.
Technologies include forms of social organisation. Military, economic or political forms etc. Neoliberal capitalism and developmentalism are both resolution sets that have probably developed into obstacles to facing challenges, partly because they involve continual growth and a convenient belief that The Market solves every problem and its victors should be helped rather than hindered.
The problems neoliberal capitalism and developmentalism have ‘resolved’ largely do not include the current energy, ecological or climate challenges.
The current resolution sets have generated the new challenges.
Elites can get ‘stuck’ in their resolution sets as those sets provide them with status, income, power and the certainty of being useful. They give meaning.
It is easier to turn away from those challenges when they are as big as current challenges, and solving them may involve giving up power, familiarity and meaning, which are already under threat because of the challenges.
Sometimes new resolutions come from creative groups hidden in ‘niches’ or the spaces between powers, where they can develop without being prematurely crushed. This is a diversity in action.
If these creative groups succeed they may become a new elite from without or, if the current elites are functional, a new part of the established elites and produce change from within.
The presence of successful movements can change the politics of the dominant system, as politicians seek the potential votes of those involved in the new success.
Not changing the workings of the economic and political, neoliberal and developmentalist elites, will lead to disaster.
Energy
Energy is vital for all life including social life. The basic forms of energy are sunlight and ‘food’.
Energy is found in ecologies (social or ‘natural’), in the active patterns of systems.
Energy in society tends to be intertwined with power relations.
Powerful people often have more access to energy, and to the provision of energy – through money, might and so on. Less powerful people have less available energy.
The more energy available, then the more can be funneled to the dominant elites, increasing inequality, and apparently making those dominant elites more secure and more able to ignore challenges.
Dominant elites, and dominant ways of life, are threatened by lack of energy. Hence the change from fossil fuels to renewables, which could provide less energy, can be seen as threatening.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can be released and lost. Releasing energy takes energy – First Law of thermodynamics.
Energy and Entropy
Energy is always dissipated when used. A closed system will run down – this is the Second Law of thermodynamics.
Energy needs to come from outside the local system, so social access to energy tends to be competitive between social groups and between nations.
Structures of order require energy expenditure, or they will decay or wear down, and need to be repaired, or changed, through energy use – or else more energy is required to bypass the decay.
The more ‘artificial’ the structures of order the more energy they will need.
Societies and businesses tend to let their structures of order such as sewage, electricity cabling, gas piping, buildings and so on decay, as repairing them is endless and takes money away from other more ‘glamorous’ or status filled projects and most of the time we don’t notice.
Paradoxically, more energy can lead to both benefit and more destruction especially ecological destruction, reinforcing the smashing of planetary boundaries.
Fossil fuels have been an excellent source of energy.
The modern world has been built on fossil fuels.
Without fossil fuel burning producing the unintended effects of pollution, ill-health, climate change and the possibilities of peak oil, few people might wish to change.
The Energy Transition requires large amounts of energy. It will almost certainly be some time before the transition can be powered without burning fossil fuels, and increasing GHG emissions and making the situation worse.
This is especially the case if humanity keeps increasing its energy demand, or if Jevons effects mean renewables simply add to energy supply without replacing fossil fuels in the longer term.
Steady State? Degrowth
One possible route to transition is to reduce energy use (perhaps through efficiency measures, but perhaps through cutbacks).
Perhaps less energy should be devoted to harming the planetary systems, and to the political systems.
This (as implied above) will be resisted by current elites, and has other consequences, many of which may not be foreseeable.
finds that governments plan to produce around 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, and 69% more than would be consistent with 2°C.
ibid.
This means that:
Taken together, government plans and projections would lead to an increase in global coal production until 2030, and in global oil and gas production until at least 2050.
In other words despite 151 national governments pledging to achieve net-zero emissions, by 2050, governments and fossil fuel companies are working together to produce more fossil fuels, and hence more emissions. OR they are simply ignoring the emissions problem, and hoping it will go away.
As is well known the International Energy Agency has argued that if we wish to stay under 1.5°C all there can be no development of new oil and gas fields after 2021.
Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our pathway, and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required.
It appears from the UN report that not one country has committed to cutting coal, oil or gas production to be consistent with a 1.5C target, and with this level of production, we are locked into a more than 2°C temperature rise.
This is despite the latest forecasts that coal, oil, and gas demand will peak this decade.
Indeed this action can be seen as an attempt to undermine the prediction and keep countries addicted to using fossil fuels and increasing fossil fuel company profits.
Whatever anyone says, Carbon Capture and Storage cannot deal with this excess of emissions. It cannot deal with even a small fraction of what we already produce. So the chance of it succesfully dealing with this excess is microscopic.
Again, if we needed to know, this shows the dominant power in the world, and that it does not care what happens to people, as long as it makes its profits.
Even the excuse that coal is being phased out faster than oil and gas is useless, because:
“We find that many governments are promoting fossil gas as an essential ‘transition’ fuel but with no apparent plans to transition away from it later”
Governments are literally doubling down on fossil fuel production; that spells double trouble for people and planet… We cannot address climate catastrophe without tackling its root cause: fossil fuel dependence. COP28 must send a clear signal that the fossil fuel age is out of gas — that its end is inevitable. We need credible commitments to ramp up renewables, phase out fossil fuels, and boost energy efficiency, while ensuring a just, equitable transition
However, if Governments have previously promised to cut emissions but are really supporting fossil fuel companies in increasing emissions, why would anyone trust them to really change, as opposed to saying they will change, at the COP?
These are graphs of the problem, showing the differenc between planned production and needed reduction:
Just before the COP28 meeting in the UAE, it was revealed that Adnoc, the UAE’s state oil company was going to use the conference “to jointly evaluate international LNG [liquefied natural gas] opportunities” in Mozambique, Canada and Australia, and that it planned to discuss fossil fuel deals with 13 other nations including Columbia, Germany and Egypt. The documents suggest that Adnoc would argue that “there is no conflict between the sustainable development of any country’s natural resources and its commitment to climate change.”
The president of COP28, Dr Sultan al-Jaber, is the head of Adnoc. In 2022, under his leadership, Adnoc announced they would invest $US150 billion to “accelerate” the growth of oil and gas development. “Adnoc’s ‘overshoot’ of the IEA net zero scenario is…. 6.8 BBOE [billion barrels of oil equivalent], the third largest worldwide.” [The Link in the Guardian article to the accelerated growth announcement, no longer works, but see the ABC].
“The UAE team did not deny using COP28 meetings for business talks, and said ‘private meetings are private’.”
The UAE also prepared talking points on commercial opportunities for its state renewable energy company, Masdar, ahead of meetings with 20 countries, including the UK, United States, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Brazil, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kenya.
This can be seen as part of the fossil fuel company’s campaign to keep new fields opening and implies that it is rountine to put business before attempts to lower emissions.
While we are at it, the World Meterological Organisation released a preliminary finding that:
confirms that 2023 is set to be the warmest year on record. Data until the end of October shows that the year was about 1.40 degrees Celsius (with a margin of uncertainty of ±0.12°C )above the pre-industrial 1850-1900 baseline….. The past nine years, 2015 to 2023, were the warmest on record…. Greenhouse gas levels are record high. Global temperatures are record high. Sea level rise is record high. Antarctic sea ice is record low.
My guess after seeing this result, is that we are going to sail over 1.5 degrees in a very short time, which means that cut backs in fossil fuel production, use and emissions have to start immediately. If we want a safeish planet. There is no later.
Peak oil is an important concept but it often seems misunderstood.
Peak oil being passed does not mean oil will be unavailable immediately, which I have read people as saying. These statements then seem to lead to people arguing that because we have oil, peak oil is not a problem.
Some of this argument appears to come from the theology of the magic of The Market. The Market as god, is always supposed to produce what we need, without us having to prepare for market failure, market self-destruction, or simply running out of supplies on a finite world.
Predictions in brief
A 1956 world oil production prediction, based on historical data and future production, proposed by the geologist M. King Hubbert, had oil production peaking at 12.5 billion barrels per year in about the year 2000. This figure has been exceeded recently.
According to wiki, in the 1970s-1980s Shell, Exxon, the UK department of Energy and the World Bank, predicted peak oil would hit in the early 2000s, and the previous article I wrote gives some evidence that production has started to decline.
Oil production peaking does not mean that after we reach ‘peak oil’, there will be no oil available at all, just that it will be harder to obtain, and production will eventually start declining. It could even be the case that after peak oil, oil production will increase for a while due to desperation, price increases, or the use of crap fields, and then decline more abruptly.
Plenty of people have said it will take more and more energy to extract new oil when the easiest oil sites have already been found and exploited. And this seems true. No one would use tar sands oil with all its impurities and sludge, if normal oil was easy to find. No one would would be fracking for oil if oil was easy to find, same with deep sea oil. The energy cost and ecological risk of extracting seems to be increasing.
Eventually it is highly probable that the energy cost of obtaining oil will get close to the energy released from the oil being extracted, even if price factors drive the market onwards. When that happens we will be on a collapsing road. However, if ecological damage helps decrease the costs of obtaining oil, we could suspect that ecological damage from oil production will increase. This will have other consequences.
As the system is full of unknowns, the actual date at which oil will cease to be available at all in practical terms is uncertain, but it certainly looks as though we are on the way there.
Climate, technology and chaos Blog 