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.
The Coalitions “Nuclear Fantasy” is not generated by concerns about:
Energy supply, as the seven nukes will not even replace the coal power generated electricity that is being shut down, never mind grant the increase in energy we will need by 2040.
Small Modular Reactors do not exist commercially, so after a lot of blather, they are only going to use two of them, in the hope they will eventually exist. The experimental SMRs also seem to produce less electricity than do normal reactors, so they are not a substitute for normal reactors. We will probably need three times the number of nukes.
The Smart Energy Council calculates that the seven reactors will only provide 3.7% of Australia’s electricity demand by 2050. This is pretty trivial, and may not be worth the cost or the risk.
Emissions reduction or reducing climate damage, because they also want to cut back large scale renewable projects, and they are abandoning emissions reduction targets. They will have to increase emissions, to get the energy needed, probably from gas burning.
Nuclear is not very flexible, it is required to generate a baseload, that means that as with coal, it gets disrupted by high levels of solar generation. This implies that to make it work, cheaper renewable energy has to be turned off. This also implies that the Coalition will need to prevent the regular export of electricity from your rooftop into the grid, so solar will become more expensive to operate.
Delay or the electricity generation gap. Given the illegality of nuclear energy in Australia, even assuming best building practice in a country that has never built such a thing, it will take at least 15 years to complete, and many of those years will be without coal power or adequate renewables. So electricity prices will climb, and we will have shortages.
Lowering costs of electricity as they seem to be ignoring the costs of building, insuring and decommissioning nukes, and making renewables harder to use. In the UK for example electricity prices from the new nukes are so high (because of the cost of building), that they will massively increase the price of electricity generally.
The long delay means that nuclear will do nothing to lower energy prices in the near future, although they are trying to imply it will.
The CSIRO GenCost report, finds conventional nuclear power stations will cost about 2.5 times as much as onshore wind and 5 times more than large-scale solar. If so, the electricity price has to be higher to recover the capital cost.
Not surprisingly Nuclear reactors cost more to run than wind or solar. They have large numbers of moving parts, materials are dangerous, and a lot of care and precision is required.
Communities. They are happy to support opposition to, and veto over, renewable projects (because they oppose renewab;es), but no community will get a veto over nuclear because its in the “national interest”.
Coalition policy continues to ignore that the best thing for rural towns is community owned renewable energy, it keeps the money in the town, gives them control over their development and means everyone gets buy in.
Issues of taxpayer subsidies which will be required for the build, as there is no evidence that corporations want to build any nuclear energy for themselves, unlike renewables.
Costs of insurance and decommissioning. In general, even though nuclear is usually safe, because of the possibility of severe accidents insurance companies are reluctant to cover them, and taxpayers usually end up taking the risk and taxpayers usually pay the billions or more to demolish the reactors safely.
Money. As the project will probably be built by foreign companies, most of the money will leave Australia.
Nuclear waste. that appears to be something we worry about in the future.
Given the policy is not about anything sensible, it would seem to be about
Continuing their war on renewables
Supporting fossil fuel companies, and their emissions, for at least another 15 to 20 years
and
wasting lots of money, on something which could produce huge problems for Australia.
It appears this is the usual swamp politics of subsidising and protecting the fossil fuel corporate sector from change, at the taxpayers’ expense.
Nuclear might have been a great idea 10 to 20 years ago, but is not now a whole answer, or even a partial answer especially if emissions are being increased and alternatives suppressed.
In other words don’t think that building a few nuclear power stations stops the need for other action.
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.
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.”
For non-Australians, Peter Dutton is the leader of the opposition right wing party.
Whether you think Dutton is a bad thing is of course a matter of opinion.
Some people apparently think protecting fossil fuel company sales and profits is good, because they are the people who built the modern world and we should continue down that path.
Some people think climate change does not matter because a socialist conspiracy of scientists all over the world is far more probable than a conspiracy of right wing politicians, and corporations who are profiting, to deny climate change.
Some people think that not acting is a really bad choice that will kill Australians and lead to more floods, fires and droughts.
Some people think it is a really bad choice that will kill Australians and lead to more floods, fires and droughts, so we need the money from gas and coal exports….
Peter Dutton does not want fossil fuel energy to be replaced with renewable energy. As a result he has has claimed the 2030 Labor Party emissions targets are difficult and so are unobtainable, and they are bad for the economy, so he won’t bother to have any emissions reduction targets, or at least won’t bother to announce them before the next election. This protects fossil fuel emissions, and so he seems to be serious about protecting fossil fuel company profits.
In the old days would ‘Conservatives’ have shrunk from a problem because it was difficult?
His respect for the corporate economy seems much greater than his respect for human lives and the property of ordinary people. He seems to expect that it will be possible to attain the cutbacks by 2050, but of course with enough delay from not having any targets now those later targets probably won’t happen because they have also become way too difficult.
That is why he is proposing nuclear energy, which the CSIRO has said will be far more expensive than renewables plus all their oncosts of storage, cabling etc. At the best nuclear won’t be ready to run in Australia until 2040, which means at least another 16 years of fossil fuel profits. He almost certainly knows nuclear energy will not really get going, so as to replace all fossil fuels, for another 20 years after that, even if he wanted to. The problems of building the necessary 20 to 50 nuclear power stations at the same time in the one country nowadays are severe or possibly insurmountable, so it won’t happen. [We now know that they have no intention of replacing all fossil fuel generate energy with nuclear] Nuclear power also has huge costs for decommissioning, and for insurance (if you can get any). Taxpayers should not have to pay this or the billions in costs to build.
Nuclear energy also involves water for cooling so, in Australia, this probably means seaside plants only, as the rivers are already drying up. Nukes in France were shut down a year or so ago because of lack of water.
From a reducing climate turmoil point of view, Labor’s targets are inadequate as well, but far less inadequate than Dutton’s.
Dutton is also running around the country campaigning against windfarms at sea (10 or more Km away from habited zones), supposedly for both ecological and consulting with community reasons. Likewise National Party leader David Littleproud spent a day meeting with fishing and anti-wind farm groups opposed to plans for up to 200 floating turbines offshore between Wombarra and Kiama and said the Coalition was committed to overturning the two offshore wind zones now declared for the Illawarra and Port Stephens in the NSW Hunter.
“We should have a slow transition from some of our coal-fired power stations to nuclear power plants that are zero emissions and firm that up with gas and carbon capture storage, which is zero emissions as well,”
However the Coalition have never opposed offshore drilling despite it producing continual noise at depth, and being notably damaging to marine life. I’m also prepared to bet that he won’t go on endlessly about community consultation for nuke installation, if he is serious about it [again this does seem to be correct]. People will just have cop it, especially in Labor electorates, or it will not go ahead and fossil fuel company profits are guaranteed for even longer. which in his eyes seems good.
The latest move the US elites through the Atlas network, corporate bought think-tanks and Murdoch media, in their fight to preserve oil company profits, is not to focus entirely on denial of climate change or scientific conspiracy, as they are perhaps getting a little unpersuasive, but to try and get people worked up about industrial size renewables and their possible local ecological destructiveness. They do not seem to promote objection to industrial coal, gas or even diesel energy and mines, despite their documented detrimental ecological and health effects, especially when at sea, and so it seems less well organised.
There is some evidence to suggest that money is also following this trail from the USA to Australia, along with faked academic papers [2], and other fake news [3], [4], and ‘community resistance’ which has in some places been purchasing support. These activists also make sure not to ever mention the possibility of community led renewable energy – because it is (by definition) not corporate, and they do not bother to compare known effects of climate change with less likely effects of offshore wind warms.
Peter Dutton may well be following his American sponsors. He is probably also betting that Trump will win the next US Presidential election (which seems likely), and that result will be unrestrained action for oil companies and polluters (“Drill, baby, drill.”). Dutton, wants to support his American allies, because he wants to be on the winning side.
Whatever his policies are, Dutton’s choice is not a death wish as some have alleged. 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, pay his supporters, and clog social media. He will get support from Murdoch and most of the rest of the media. He will get unity in his Party (who seem to be largely climate deniers), and the whole fossil fuel and corporate ‘Deep State’ will be behind him. He is obviously courting Gina Rinehart [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. He may even get some Russian support through social media, as Putin is keen to continue to sell fossil fuels, and may logically think climate change will make Russia more habitable and gain northern ports.
In terms of gaining victory Dutton is not making a foolish choice, in terms of looking after Australia, its people, wildlife and future, he is.
Even the inadequate Labor Party actions will not be allowed to continue if he wins.
Much of this writing depends upon observations by my PhD student Priya Pillai in India. This primarily about solar and wind. It does not cover biofuels.
Solar farms
Solar panels do not require much labour once they are installed. There are no moving parts, little to be serviced, nothing to be regulated, nothing to be consumed. On the whole, unless one of the electrical components breaks down, which requires skilled labour, there is almost nothing to do.
It is extremely unlikely that there would be enough demand to hire a local person to do this generally non-demanding labour, full time, unless it was a huge field.
The panels do need washing, which requires labour. However, it is repetitive, boring and often out in the heat unless the panels are designed so that air conditioned cleaning cars can drive between them.. Some sunlight will be reflected by the panels making the air hotter. (This needs checking but it seems plausible). If the panels are high enough for agriculture underneath, then it may require the cleaners to carry ladders in the heat.
Theoretically, this labour, if done by car, could be replaced by auto-cleaning systems, with little need for human labour.
The amount of labour used in solar farms, compared to the amount of energy released, is small.
The main issue is paying back the capital and energy expenditure to build it.
Given the low profit margins of solar during the day when it is competing against other solar, it is probable that labour expenses will be cut to make profit.
The profit would probably come from stored power, but this is also competing against other stored power.
With the potentially low profit margins, it might become hard to persuade corporations to lead the renewable transition. There is no ‘supply’ of materials needed to power the power stations, as there is with fossil fuels, which carry a constant profit. But competition from cheap energy may undermine even that source of revenue.
Wind Farms
Wind farms do require skilled labour. They do have moving parts and machinery, and need servicing.
They are more prone to breakdown and fires than are solar panels
It is possible that this could provide limited skilled labour for locals. But contract and non-union labour is to be expected, with the usual high-stress lower-wages syndromes, unless unions can get involved.
The labour is quite dangerous, but probably not much more than in building. [I need to check the accident rate on windfarms.]
In Priya’s fieldwork, there are stories of people being injured on the wind turbine job and receiving no insurance cover.
General problems of renewable labour
The labour is not intensely social. It may be more so in wind, but the people that workers interact with are limited.
This will probably mean the work is not done well.
Both wind and solar are outdoor jobs and likely to be subject to increasing heat. A recent International Labour Organization report estimated that 70% of the world’s 3.4 billion workforce will be exposed to excessive heat at some point. The US has no federal standards, even though the Biden administration has requested that the Occupational Safety and Health Association draft standards.
When we talked to people working on a solar farm in South Australia, they remarked at the personal loss involved in the transition from a coal fired power station to solar. In the coal station, everything they did was important, and involved detailed collaboration. As supervisors of a solar farm they did very little except stand around, and it felt that nothing really depended on them. Solar work was generally boring, as well as emotionally unsatisfying. In more academic terms the work was meaningless and almost completely alienating.
Side effects
In Australia one of the big side effects of renewable energy is that it may set up new or intensified inequalities in towns.
Those people renting the land to the farm company get new injections of cash. If they are farmers this may mean that they are still well off in bad farming years. It may also mean that they can, again, afford to send their children away to private schools, further breaking connections with the rest of the community.
Companies still tend to conduct their rental negotiations in private, and hold public ‘neoliberal consultations’ in which the result they want is already assumed.
This leads to people being resentful and alienated from the setting up and installation process, and often angry that their environment is being altered, without any obvious benefit to them. To solve ecological problems, we want people to be concerned about their environment and then the process of saving it, modifies it with little consultation.
Likewise the lack of jobs, and local payments (there is dispute about this, as it appears to depend entirely on the company) does not encourage acceptance. There are few local benefits to compensate for the disruption.
The locals may not even get electricity from the local site.
It may also be the case that the town receives lots of applications for renewable farms, and there are too many demands to process properly.
Ecological and Land problems
One type of land problem for solar, is that the panels can be installed very close to the ground, altering or even destroying plant growth, or overtly removing the ground from farm or public use.
These low panels with shade and ease of hiding may encourage nuisance animals
In India, it seems common for land to be ‘stolen’ from people by fake contracts or contracts which people have not had explained to them, to be used for solar or wind farms. Obviously this practice leaves people in a worse place than previously.
People who have sold their land, have cash, but no continuous source of income, making them vulnerable in the long term.
The land taken can become private property and is fenced off. This is a problem because people have previously used the land as commons, to graze animals on.
The Dalit (lowest level caste) frequently have no, to little, land. This removal of common land from the area, affects their ability to survive locally. They may not be able to graze animals, or to supervise grazing for others.
Dalits often work the land of bigger land owners for wages or food. If the land is fenced off for renewable farms, there is less work available for them, and hence life becomes more precarious.
There is little work on the renewable farms especially for women. Many jobs are security guards to police the borders and keep people from damaging the panels or turbines
People may have to walk to nearby villages, in the heat, and compete with other locals for work rather than rely on traditional bonds.
This also produces alienated labour in that people are not working for people they have long standing connections and ties to. This also renders them more vulnerable in times of stress, as mere employers will feel less responsibility.
It is generally considered that women walking long distances by themselves are vulnerable to attack, or scandal. So it affects women more than men.
Panels still need cleaning. This requires water. And may mean extra demands on underground aquifers. This may make water more expensive for ordinary people. There is some evidence to suggest that some companies engage in water theft, or that the water table is declining given the extra demand. Shortages may be increased due to climate change.
Climate Change
Weather and ecologies will change. This is largely unpredictable in a changing complex system.
Because of extra water and shade new plants can develop, with new animal life. Creatures can chew cables etc., or spread into neighboring fields.
Solar farms do not want trees, or other shade plants. So they can be cut down. This might change local temperatures for labour
Theoretically nothing stops farms using high solar panels, or windfarms, from grazing, or perhaps other agriculture.
New flooding might be a problem, requiring labour to fix, but probably this would involve imported labour.
Wind might decline or increase too much.
Community Energy
Most of these problems arise because the farms are being run by distant corporate organisations, which have few local ties beyond cash transaction. In a way they are perhaps more difficult to deal with than fossil fuel companies, who are bound to place in a way these renewable companies are not, as yet. Fossil fuel companies generally provide reasonable amounts of labour, and invest in the town, and local media (through advertisements). So at the moment, fossil fuel activity may even be more popular than renewable.
However, if people opt for, and can deliver community energy, despite all the regulatory obstacles then some of these problems may be solved.
As a local organisation they will be interested in using local labour, possibly to build, and probably to maintain.
They are likely to be aware of, and concerned with, heat problems for labour.
The labour is slightly less likely to be alienated as people know each other from the town, and if the energy supplies the town is likely to be considered valuable.
They are able to choose land that most people are happy with using.
Knowing local climate and flood patterns might help local farms survive.
They are more likely to consider the issues of land use, and allow alternate land use, such as grazing, if it seems possible or necessary.
They are perhaps less likely to destroy common land, if it is still being used by people.
The money locals pay for electricity is likely to stay in the town rather than be exported to the corporations, cities or overseas, and contribute to more local labour and investment.
Energy and Labour
Labour turns food into directable energy, often produces organisation of production and produces waste (at least excretion, and dispersed heat or entropy). The steam engine provided new energy, greater quantities of waste, ways of organising labour, and diminishing the capacity of labour to be self-supporting (in Marx’s terms, labourers no longer owned the means of production, or held the means of production in common, or by tradition).
As a source of energy, labour can be replaced by other energy, with other forms of waste generation and pollution. The intelligent and directional part of labour can be replaced by computer, or design, programs. Sometimes this change can end up providing more and better jobs, but that is tied up with power relations. Capitalists tend to design tech to get rid of costs (labour is a cost) and to get rid of their dependency on human skills. Hence the chances are high the technology design can be about disempowering laboutr Steam engines did not bring quality jobs, working or living conditions. They helped displace people from the land, greater concentration of people in cities to give greater competition for wages, and adding inhuman control over workers.
It is conceivable that with cheap renewables, cheap (possibly almost free) energy, storage, and AI, that human labour could diminish, leading to general poverty, without a new way of distributing income.
Energy tends to end up being involved in social power. Those people with social power have access to energy, whether it is human labour, the potential labour stored in money, machines, control over weaponry, and so on. As said previously in this blog, the energy and riches elite has so far been a polluter elite. Cutting pollution has been strongly resisted, and cutting energy and distributing it more equitably may also be resisted. We might even describe a more universal ‘class war’ as a struggle between the owners and controllers of energy (who want to maintain that control, power and security), and those who labour or use energy.
Living systems take energy from outside their own fuzzy boundaries in the form of sunlight and/or food.
The boundaries are fuzzy, because the living system would not exist without the food and sunlight. They use this energy to build, repair and develop themselves.
In this building, repairing and developing, living systems turn energy sources into waste, in the form of excreta: gasses, liquids and ‘solids’.
In a coherently evolved system this ‘waste’ then acts as food for other beings (plants, insects, worms, etc). The waste does not accumulate, poison or overwhelm the system as a whole, but is ‘recycled’ as part of the Gaia system.
Eventually most living systems either change through processes of evolution, start to run down, or can no longer extract enough energy to keep their processes completely functional. They wear out and die – assuming that they do not die by accident or through feeding some other being. As they wear down the chances of accident increase – they can avoid fewer accidents or recover from them as well as previously.
We can call this process, after it starts, “physical entropy” to distinguish it from normal entropy which is the dispersion of energy, into non-usable forms (usually as heat).
Social generation of Physical Entropy
All social systems, like all other systems, generate entropy or energy dispersion. This what they do. As long as the Sun keeps going this is not a problem for Gaia as a whole, although systems which use non-renewable energy may face considerable challenge.
‘Physical entropy’ likewise happens normally, but can also be generated by economic and social systems, to a degree which overwhelms these social and economic processes.
Sometimes this may arise from the system slowly suiciding, although the system may be able to responsively change and adapt, and not suicide (as argued in the Toynbee cycle [1]).
This blog considers social generation of ‘illth,’ the term John Ruskin developed for the generally ignored (by the elites), but socially generated forms of harm which manifest as increasing physical entropy. Illth is the opposite of wealth. Ruskin appears to argue that true wealth is collective.
The blog recognises Illth as arising from the following processes. There may be more.
Pollution: when materials are released into the ecologies, which are poisonous or non-reprocessable by those ecologies. It is contrasted to recyclable ‘waste.’
Dispersion: when essential materials are dispersed into the ecology, and require too much energy to be able to recompile. Contemporary Marxists talk about this as the ‘metabolic rift’.
Destructive extraction: when the process of gathering essential materials destroys or poisons ecologies, faster than they can regenerate, or makes regeneration impossible in a humanly ‘reasonable time frame’.
Harmful production: when the process and products of economic action hurt beings. This includes harmful labour and work which poisons people, causes them to develop occupational or consumerist illnesses, distracts them from challenges, hurts their modes of being and thinking, and so on.
Expansion – involves a society or a social process growing beyond the ability of the ecology, or the extraction system (etc) to support it. Expansion can also involve military force aiming to get new ‘resources’. Any social feature which demands increasing ‘growth’ is going to lead to crisis in a finite bounded system, possibly fairly quickly. Estimates show that we already ‘overshoot’ or consume more in a year than the planet can produce in a year. This should show that continual growth is no longer an option. In 2023 we consumed Earth’s production by the 2 August. In 1971 we consumed it by nearly the end of December, so the increase of destruction is marked. We are already highly indebted with a lowering income.
[I don’t know if this is correct or not, but these figures result from using the exponential growth calculator. Let us assume that we currently consume 1 earth per year and are just about balanced. Let us also assume that we grow at 2% per year. That’s pretty small by capitalist standards, probably bad for business. In just 100 years (assuming this would be possible without interruption or collapse), we end up consuming 7.2 Earths per year. That is clearly not ‘sustainable’. Continuing expansion is destructive]
Physical entropy can be ‘natural’ and the system slowly evolves to a new equilibrium (attractor point).
Power Relations and Physical Entropy.
As shown, in social systems, physical entropy can be generated by unconsidered social processes, or through elites ignoring both the entropic challenges which are arising and the energy needs for repair. They presumably are worrying about other things, or severely implicated in producing the entropy to maintain their status or power, and worry about other things to keep themselves from worrying about their own self-destructiveness.
Social entropy often involves power relations, or the ability to keep on generating illth processes, against opposition, or evidence of impending collapse.
Power relations allow pollution to be usually dumped on the relatively poor and powerless. Elites think they will be immune.
Power relations and technologies allow elites to consider that dispersion of materials will be overcome by economic need and economic processes.
Power relations allow people and other beings to be dispossessed from their land or water (or even killed), and for that ecology to be destroyed. The inhabitants and users are ignored, while the elites consider themselves immune.
Harmful production: the elites consider themselves immune from harming others, and are able to make people work in harmful labour.
Power relations make expansion continue, because it is thought be elites to be essential, and it gives the less powerful some hope of sharing in social wealth.
The more energy is dispersed and systems start to break down (perhaps because of power relations) the more vulnerable the system becomes to accident overtaking the ability to repair, especially with cumulative accidents, such as wild weather events coming one after the other. Hence the system is also likely to collapse, unless this challenge is dealt with. For example, the Lismore floods reached 11.6m in march 2017. Repairs were not complete before the record floods of 2022 when the flood level reached 14.4m. Lismore today is still full of damaged and unusable buildings (personal observation), and obviously there is some lack of human energy, because we don’t know how long it will be before the town and surrounds seriously floods again.
Capitalism, Developmentalism and power
Capitalism and developmentalism, especially their neoliberal forms, can be considered as a systems of: power relations, exchange, production, and illth generation.
Many other systems are systems of production and exchange which are not remotely capitalist – unless you are willing to define capitalism so generally that even a working communism would count as capitalism.
Many other economic systems can generate illth production. Overthrowing capitalism may not be either necessary or enough to stop illth. We are simply referring to the obvious present.
Neoliberal Capitalism and developmentalism (and state communism if you wish) seem patterned by their illth production and the power relations that allow this to continue.
As cleaning up, not polluting, not dispersing, not destroying etc, cost companies money, and therefore subtract from profit, capitalist organisations will make non-destructive behaviour secondary and consider illth to be an externality which is no concern of theirs, unless they are compelled to prevent it by regulations and legislation. Pro-corporate politicians will often try and remove any restrictions on pollution as part of their service to profitable polluters and destroyers.
Power relations and normal capitalist processes of advertising, PR, hype, marketing, misdirection, etc, also corrupt the production and distribution of information, and disempower movements against illth. Workers do not have the knowledge to act and face the dangers or asking. For example: Exxon knew about climate change and denied it to maintain sales and profit [1]. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
Not Suiciding by Physical Entropy
Not suiciding or system continuance, requires, at a minimum:
1) System repair: Systems that are wearing out, need repair or replacement. Repair or replacement need available energy, money, ‘resources’ and organisation.
2) Maintaining renewable resources: Renewable resources (including oxygen production), should not be used, or destroyed, faster, than they can regenerate.
3) Replacement of non renewable resources: non-renewable resources should be replaced by renewable ones, wherever possible.
4) Fewer physical entropy and illth generating actions: Only production of recyclable waste and less pollution, less dispersion, less destructive extraction, less harmful labour.
5) Careful waste production: no waste should be produced faster than it can be recycled or re-processed. Obviously that includes CO2 and other Greenhouse gases.
6) Recovering awareness: Less unconsciousness of the social and economic destruction of systems that support continuance – ecologies, other people and so on.
7) Better information sources, that are independent of corporations and governments.
These are all relatively obvious, sensible and logical processes, hence they have been avoided for 50 or so years. We cannot assume that sense and logic is persuasive to the elites or the populace.
You might not think there is any good energy news, with the current electricity price crisis which will probably result in not a few deaths over the northern winter.
However, the fossil fuel companies are showing major increases in their profit [1] [2] [3] [4]. While this is a boon if you are an investor, it may also be good for the transition as, for once, increasing profit is getting attention – perhaps because this hurts other companies as well as ordinary people. The fossil fuel companies could well appear to be profiteering in this price crises and rejoicing in the expected deaths or, at best, doing nothing to diminish the number. This is not a good look.
The price of fossil fuel electricity is rising and perhaps encouraging renewables
The International Energy Agency states:
High gas and coal prices account for 90% of the upward pressure on electricity costs around the world. …
A key question for policy makers, and for this Outlook, is whether the crisis will be a setback for clean energy transitions or will catalyse faster action. Climate policies and net zero commitments were blamed in some quarters for contributing to the run-up in energy prices, but there is scant evidence for this. In the most affected regions, higher shares of renewables were correlated with lower electricity prices, and more efficient homes and electrified heat have provided an important buffer for some – but far from enough – consumers. ….
[It is possible that] New policies in major energy markets [will] help propel annual clean energy investment to more than USD 2 trillion by 2030 in the STEPS, a rise of more than 50% from today.
While it is still possible to blame Putin and ignore the profiteering, or indeed blame renewables, EU Executive Vice-President Timmermans and Commissioner Simson essentially supported the IEA, announcing that
Putin’s war has stoked an energy crisis in Europe that continues to have huge repercussions. In response, we have moved swiftly to secure alternative supplies, accelerate the rollout of renewables, and start reducing gas demand to ensure European citizens are safe for winter.
We need to understand that the pre-war situation with abundant, cheap fossil fuels is not coming back
First, [our action] brings a European reduction in electricity consumption of 10%. During peak-hours, electricity consumption must go down at least 5% so we avoid using the most expensive gas-fired power plants and bring down the price of energy. This will be mandatory, so that the targets are met by everyone
Second, our package proposes a European mechanism for collecting and redistributing the exceptional surplus profits and revenues that the war in Ukraine has brought several energy companies. This can generate up to € 117 billion for Member States to support European households and businesses who face unsurmountable energy bills.
Our dependence on Russian gas is down from 40% to 9%. Storage in every Member State is quickly nearing the required 80%, and the EU-average, as the President said this morning, is close to 84%. We are all saving more and more energy. And the pace of renewables being rolled out is steadily rising.
In the end, our green energy transition is the only way to rid ourselves of Putin’s energy yoke and it will create energy sovereignty in Europe. The era of cheap fossil fuels is over and the faster we move to cheap, clean, and home-grown renewables, the sooner we will be immune to Russia’s energy blackmail and anybody else who may think they can blackmail us with energy.
There is other evidence for the increasing build of renewables in the EU, despite increased costs. Bloomberg New Energy Finance announced that:
Surging energy costs are expected to help drive yet another record year for new solar installations in Europe. As households look to lower their energy bills, residential solar build in the region is forecast to hit 10.4 gigawatts in 2022, a 42% increase from a year earlier… This is projected to propel annual solar additions in Europe to an all-time high of 41 gigawatts this year, on the way to 93 gigawatts by the end of the decade. The momentum comes despite elevated prices for modules due to the raised cost of key raw material polysilicon.
It also seems we have the money to get through transition, only its currently being invested in fossil fuels. The IISD has announced new meta-research (ie researching the research on pathways through climate change) which says we can probably stay under 1.5 degrees increase if:
1) Global oil and gas production decreases by at least 65% by 2050
2) No new oil and gas fields are started
3) The planned investments in new oil and gas to 2030 were used to fully finance the scale-up of wind and solar energy needed.
In Australia, Beyond Zero Emissions in their Deploy report argue that:
81% emissions reduction is achievable by 2030 with an ambitious rollout of cleantech over the next five years, supported by targeted carbon drawdown. This can create up to 195,000 jobs and repower Australia’s manufacturing regions.
Six technologies – all available today – will do the heavy lifting: solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, electric vehicles, heat pumps and electrolysers.
The drawdown seems to be primarily agricultural, putting carbon in the soil – which does have some problems of easy measurement and validation. It would account for 10% of the decline total, so 71% decline can be achieved without it.
The Australian e-news site RenewEconomy open a recent article with:
Brookfield Asset Management is a global giant with assets of around $A1 trillion. Andrew Forrest, Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar are Australia’s three richest men. All are committed to accelerating Australia’s green energy transition. A shortage of capital is not the problem here.
My guess is that this quick transition would be even more possible, if we stopped subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuel companies. This stoppage could be justified by their current high profits…. Not that any Australian government would probably survive that attempt.
But we do need wiring for the transition. In a tweet Jenny Chase from Bloomberg remarked:
We don’t need a technology breakthrough. Today, solar developers just need a grid connection and permission to sell electricity and they’ll be off building solar plants whether it’s a good idea or not.
And the Australian government has just promised to make sure grid connections exist, through the Rewiring the Nation project:
The proposal would provide $20 billion of equity equally over 3 years, from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2025 to create a new public non-financial corporation, which would be: • responsible for building, managing and operating the Australian Energy Market Operator Integrated System Plan transmission network • mandated to earn a rate of return that is sufficient to cover its financial and operational costs
Labor has promised $20bn to “rewire the nation” by accelerating the construction of new electricity transmission links between states and regions as the east coast power grid moves from running predominantly on coal power to renewable energy. Modelling for Labor by the consultants RepuTex suggested it would help lift renewable energy generation from about 35% to 82% by 2030.
In the UK something similar was announced, but the political confusion make it harder to be optimistic.
National Grid announced this summer it was making a £54bn upgrade to the electricity network, the biggest since the 1960s, to help connect offshore windfarms more easily and enable battery storage facilities to connect up to store renewable power, a crucial issue in the industry
Likewise in the US, a much smaller amount of US$13bn has also been announced to modernize the U.S. power grid using allocations from the infrastructure law. This is claimed to be the “biggest federal investment in transmission and distribution in U.S. history”.
the administration has also issued approvals for several interstate transmission lines that will span Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona and California and unlock capacity of about six gigawatts
This is a bit more recent, but the Australian Electricity Market Operator has announced a roadmap to prepare the grid to run on 100% renewables. AEMO expects 100% renewables going without fossil fuel backup going for intervals of time by 2025.
The Engineering Roadmap to 100% Renewables provides an overview of the engineering challenges and associated actions that will need to be undertaken to operate the NEM for the first period of 100% instantaneous penetration of renewables, and the actions required to satisfy more regular operation at 100% renewable penetration. Responsibility for undertaking these actions and meeting the technical requirements identified in this report will ultimately be shared across many parties, including AEMO, NSPs, market bodies, market participants, and governments
Coal plants take many hours, or even days, to restart operation, so once taken offline, they can’t be relied on to meet immediate intraday energy demands, or provide system restart services. Operating regularly with 100% renewable power also means reducing the need for regular reliance on gas-fired generators to firm the electricity supply. Operating a gigawatt-scale power system at 100% instantaneous renewable generation is a feat unparalleled worldwide.
The main obstacles are storage and renewable source “inverters, which don’t inherently deliver all of the same stabilising attributes that traditional synchronous generators provide to the power system.”
They also realise that “The human dimensions of this transition are as important as the technical requirements”.
Polling
Polling continues to show most Australians want action on climate change. This is possibly not a big deal as Australians wanted such action all through the last government’s reign, and where ignored or did not vote for it. However, the figures indicate there is support for action. Analysis of the latest Australia Institute Climate of the Nation Poll says:
Three-quarters (75%) of Australians are concerned about climate change, the same level of concern seen in 2021 and the highest since Climate of the Nation began. The intensity of concern has increased as well, with record high levels of those who are ‘very concerned’ about climate change (42%).
The top three climate impacts of concern are more droughts and flooding affecting crop production and food supply (83%), more bushfires (83%), and the extinction of animal and plant species (80%).
This indicate that Australians are actually aware of the levels of weather damage we are suffering from, and their likely effects on food and wildlife, despite the Murdoch Empire’s constant agitation against recognition of damage, or engaging in climate action.
Weather seems to be connected to coal based power by the resopondents.
79% of Australians believe that Australia’s coal-fired power stations should be phased out… 31%… think they should be phased out as soon as possible… 65% of Australians want coal-fired power generation completely ended within the next 20 years, including 38% who want it ended within the next decade…
64% of Australians support stopping new coal mines…. 73% think Australian governments should plan to phase out coal mining and transition into other industries…
ibid
Australians also seem to be losing faith in the ability of markets to solve all problems as
64% agree that failure by the market to prepare for a transition away from fossil fuels has led to electricity price increases, including 31% that strongly agree
ibid.
Conclusion
So while I still think we need more local action, and more overt political support, there are signs that things might be changing and people are thinking it might be entirely disastrous if we start showing our support for action…
Problem 1: Climate change is one part of a general mode of ecological destruction. It is not the total, and possibly not even the most important ecological problem we have. It may even distract us from the rest of the destruction. For instance we may do nothing about potential ocean death, or the decline in availability of phosphorus.
Problem 2: it appears that achieving contemporary ‘developed’ life, and military defense, requires massive energy consumption.
Problem 3: It is not yet demonstrated that capitalism can run with no ecological destruction, and no freeloading, or without growing ecological destruction, and without growing energy consumption.
Problems with the energy transition
Renewables make a tiny percentage of the total energy supply, although a reasonable percentage of electricity supply. They constitute about 5-8% of total energy supply if you don’t count biofuels or hydro, which are probably pretty much fixed.
While renewables are increasing, so are fossil fuels, and so are emissions and the amount of GHG (greenhouse gas in the atmosphere)
One big question is “How do we generate enough energy to manufacture the renewables we need rapidly?” as there is not enough spare Renewable energy to do this.
The answer is probably via fossil fuels – again new energy production may be needed, because we don’t have much spare. So the phase out may increase emissions for a while, and increase the problems.
Renewables are supposedly now cheaper to build and install, so this problem should diminish.
However, if we do “electrify everything” such as automobiles, then we need even more renewables, or else there is not that much point.
Emissions will not diminish if renewables (or other energy sources) do not replace fossil fuels, and emissions do not peak soon….. We cannot risk more emissions.
Reducing emissions, not only requires renewables, but probably requires some kind of degrowth.
Developing countries don’t want degrowth as it gives them less military power and prosperity, and developed countries won’t degrow because they think it will lose votes and corporate profits, and they keep promoting fossil fuels as the cheapest and easiest thing for developing countries, probably because they have been bought by fossil fuel companies.
However, life as was lived in the west in the 1960s say was ok, and released a lot less GHG emissions than we do nowadays. It was also incredibly energy inefficient, so we may well be able to attain that kind of life level for most everyone, if we wanted.
Renewables require minerals, and mining is ecologically destructive. The only compensation for the new mining being done is that coal, gas and oil mining are also ecologically destructive, and getting more so, as supplies get more difficult to find (you don’t go for tar sands, deep sea oil and coal-seam gas if you have better fields).
If open slather mining destruction is stopped, the price of minerals increases, and the transition slows.
At the moment we have masses of lithium, but like everything else it is exhaustible, and prices will increase, the greater the demand.
However, people are searching for other kinds of battery, such as weight driven batteries. I’ve certainly heard people say that lithium storage is not the way to go. (People are always talking about the endless creativity of capitalism, but for some reasons those people do not talk about it when it comes to renewables)
Many places have the prices of electricity tied to the most expensive source, which means that people rarely get rewarded for paying for renewables unless they have them personally. They still have to pay the price of fossil fuels, and deal with company profiteering. Fossil fuel profits are wildly up at the moment as there is no competition between fossil fuel companies. Fossil fuel companies have the dilemma of do we sell the stuff now while we can, or do we wait and slowly keep lifting the price. They need increased revenue to deal with the more difficult fields which they are likely to be left with. Gas fields are still relatively big, and easy, but we have seen the price of gas increase massively, which also suggests something like keeping production low and price high is happening.
The fossil fuel companies are incredibly rich and powerful, and will do everything to inhibit the transition, as it would mean the end of their riches and power. They are not making a transition at all – they are depending upon everyone failing to make the transition.
We can hope for improved nuclear or fusion tech, but this does not seem to be happening. Fusion is having successes, but they are small. I have seen reports that China is rolling out small reactors, but they typically have no data, and the CSIRO had no access to any real data about costs and electricity generated. Large scale nuclear appears to be slow, usually taking far more time and money than estimated to build, as well as its other problems.
AS climate damage increases, money and energy will be diverted away from the energy transition, into repair or preparation for the next set of damage. We cannot deal with cumulative catastrophe even now, never mind another 20 years.
As the problem seems insolvable people will invent fantasy solutions to help them cope with the reality. These will be theoretically feasible, but in practice which serve to keep fossil fuels going with the hope we can easily solve the problem soon. Things like carbon credits, carbon capture and storage. This can be called saved by imaginary technology.
Another way forward, is to give up on national action and encourage villages to be self supporting on solar or wind, and just accepting that sometimes the energy will be low.
It is very possible that the amount of low emissions energy will not increase at the rate we need, and that the amount of fossil fuels being burnt will also not decrease at the rate we need. We may need to degrow, and to value other things. But that does involve changing society.
Climate, technology and chaos Blog 