Below is a graph of per capita carbon dioxide emissions for various countries around the world. Which countries have an emissions level consistent with an 80 percent reduction from the world's current total emissions?
The answer is is Haiti and Somalia.
From Prometheus: 'Carbon Emissions Success Stories'
Professor Ross Garnaut says that Australia should promote strong global action on climate change and be prepared to match the commitments of other developed nations. Well, 80 per cent, rather than 60, seems to be the preferred rate, so good luck!
Began begin begun. Screwed the pooch on that a little.
Ladies and gentlemen the Haitification of Aus has began. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23263832-661,00.html
"Trinity Grammar is making an environmental stand, planning to remove all its air-conditioners within five years.
Small windows to allow natural air flow will replace air conditioning in all areas of the school except rooms that house computer servers.
Students and staff have been told to be "resilient" and teachers will alter their lesson plans on extremely hot days. "
All this time, I thought I was making an environmental stand by turning on my air conditioner. Raging against the heat and such.
I agree, Malcolm. "Saving the Planet" is the ultimate onanistic response of the narcissist. It gives them the opportunity to pretend they are actually achieving a "worthwhile" outcome while never actually doing anything at all.
Their favourite ploy is to identify a trend in natural variation, call it a threat, do a great deal of attention seeking stunts that do nothing, and then claim the credit when nature moves, as it always does, in the opposite direction.
Garnaut is the classic product of his Labor Party links. He basically has done nothing of merit for the past 12 years. Just sat in hibernation like a desert frog waiting for the next downpour of ALP funded bull$hit, his elixir of life.
At the end of the day the work Garnaut is doing, with or without his comb over, and the cabal of publically funded crimatologists, are going to have to explain to the Australian people why spending billions to achieve a reduction of 0.000043 degrees by year 60,is worth bothering with at all.
Just what sort of distorted sense of reality is it that says that 20m people will have any effect of the International community,such that would it would mean our 0.000043 contribution would have any leverage at all, is beyond me.
If the greeny flakes that inhabit this blog come back and say well its because we need to be more efficient in the way we use energy, then I would accept that,irrespective of whats happening on the AGW front
But that ( being more efficient) should be based upon its own analysis and business case, and not spun off from something already seen as a mix of political/economic spin, and scientific humbug.
Ender clearly has not read, or chose not to retain this important information.
"Since 1987 the (USA) cost of producing electricity has decreased from 3.63 cents per KWHr to 1.68 cents per KWHr in 2004 and plant availability has increased from 67% to over 90%. The operating cost includes a charge of 0.2 cents per KW-Hr to fund the eventual disposal of waste from the reactor and for decommissioning the reactor. The price of Uranium Ore contributes approximately 0.05 cents per KWHr".
Ender has consistently quoted from costings from the 1970s and has consistently claimed that the cost of waste disposal and de-commissioning has not been included in the price of nuclear power. This is dead wrong.
As for waste disposal, "In the USA, Nuclear Power operators are charged 0.1 cents per KW-Hr for the disposal of Nuclear Waste. In Sweden this cost is 0.13 US cents per KW-Hr. These Countries have utilized these funds to pursue research into Geologic disposal of waste and both now have mature proposals for the task. In France the cost of waste disposal and decommissioning is estimated to be 10% of the construction cost. So far provisions of 71 billion Euros have been acquired for this from the sale of electricity".
That is 71 billion euros, Ender, by the French alone, and the fund is still increasing each year. The interest earned on these funds each year (at 6%) would build three new stations.
Lets just repeat that for Ender, raw material cost is 0.05 cents/kWh while disposal and de-commission is 0.2 cents/kWh.
There is also a comprehensive demolition of the claimed life cycle costs of nuclear power, as quoted by Ender, further down the page at;
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheBenefitsOfNuclearPower
When solar and wind can match 3 cents/kWh we might take it seriously.
Modern nuclear reactor fuels are not generally metals but oxides or flourides of the metal so they do not need to be extracted.
http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/fuel-fab.html
weapons need the metal, the oxides are just as fissile but do not go well in bombs but are just fine for modern reactors.
If the spent fuel is remixed and sintered with the slag from the mining it is no more radioactive than the original ore with a shorter half life than the original U238 which has a half life of 4.5 Billion years. So the large amounts of materials used to dispose of the waste is waste to begin with.
Mind you some of the waste can be reprocessed into reactor fuel especially from and for integral fast reactors and used for other things so isn't really waste.
For anyone that believes the crazed writing of nuclear power proponents need only read this which is mentioned.
http://www.stormsmith.nl/
"The nuclear system has some unique features, no other energy system has, being:
• the energy source is a metal to be extracted from ores,
• the irreversible generation of immense quantities of radioactivity,
• the extremely long-term commitments of 100-150 years,
• very large uncertainties regarding the completion of a nuclear project.
Once started, a nuclear reactor generates unavoidable and very large amounts of radioactive waste, posing immeasurable risks to man and society. The safe cleanup of the nuclear legacy requires a number of processes, each consuming large amounts of materials, human effort and energy."
Good point Johnathan. Any time we need nuclear expertise (we have it already) just give me a brown bag full of resident visas and I'll get us one of the 86 Chinese teams doing new plant installations for 2011-2015.
And for anyone who might have seriously believed all Enders crazed hallucinations on the cost of nuclear power and waste disposal etc, take a look at these costings, based on the French, assembly line, construction model. http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheBenefitsOfNuclearPower
anthony,
"nuclear is probably not a good idea for Oz, considering we have no skill in developing it."
So I assume, that when you have any electrical problem, you buy a new house!? because you may have no skill in fixing it?
Jesus Christ man, ever heard of paying for skills you don't have?
I had a better opinion of you until this.
I can't figure out what the bar chart means.
Does the per capita emission include energy exports of coal, oil, gas,uranium oxide for instance?
The political reality is that a reduction of carbon emissions as envisioned will not, cannot, be achieved (precluding nuclear) without coercion.
Welcome to the brave new world http://www.isg-fi.org.uk/spip.php?article464.