Hi xy,
NSW had their state elections yesterday [23 March]. One of my old friends, xx, is active with the Greens whose Tamara Smith won the seat of Ballina NSW.....
I read their policies and want to send xx a question. Which is a serious question. A draft below which I did without resorting to google. So can you, also without resorting to google, tell me your thoughts?
Thanks
F
Draft follows....
Hi xx, well done to you all and to Tamara! And tx for the photo! Nice.
I’ve read the NSW Greens policies and agree with most of them. I have a few questions. Here’s one, on their energy platform:
Some quick maths (I haven’t gone to Google for this, it’s off the top of my head, but the figures are broadly correct).
Australia provides about one-fifth of world uranium ore needs. (LATER: 16% but let’s not quibble)
There are about 400 nuclear power plants in the world with capacity of about 1Gw each. (LATER: 410+ but let’s not quibble)
Let’s assume that if we banned the export of Australian uranium ore it would not be made up by other countries. We must assume this, otherwise what would be the point of banning Australia’s sale of it?
So about 80 nuclear stations (one-fifth of 400) around the world would have to close, for lack of uranium feedstock.
That’s a global loss of roughly 80 GW of clean energy.
Australia has a capacity of about 60Gw of electricity production and the Greens want 100% of that to be renewable by 2030. (Attainable? Let’s not quibble).
But the Greens’ policy of banning the sale of uranium ore would reduce the amount of clean energy in the world by 80Gw or 33% more than Australia’s total electricity production.
In summary: even if Australia manages to convert all electricity production to clean renewables by 2030, banning Australian uranium or exports would add 133% of non-clean electricity to the world.
IOW, Principle 9 goes against the whole rest of the Greens policy platform of reducing carbon emissions.
How does that make sense?
What would Tamara Smith say? (just about the uranium ore issue. Nuclear plants are a whole ‘nother issue).
Maybe: the nuclear plants would not close down because they would get the ore somewhere else. Just not Australia. But then why reduce the employment and income Australia gets for exporting uranium ore, while doing a net nothing for the environment?
Or she might say: the closed nuclear stations could be replaced by renewables. Well... maybe.... But recent experience shows the opposite. When Germany and Japan closed down nuclear power stations in the wake of Fukushima,in both cases -countries with strong Green movements - the result was quick building and recommissioning of coal-fired plants to replace the nuclear, with a resultant jump in carbon dioxide emissions.
Or she might say: I’m only talking about the exploration and mining of uranium ore in NSW. Ok, but then what I say above still holds, but just for NSW. And it may well be that the policy is the same at the National Greens level and I can’t tell without googling which I can’t be arsed to do right now....
In sum: given the magnitude of the likely global loss of carbon-free energy from prohibiting uranium ore exports, it strikes me as odd that it’s a Greens policy platform “Principle”, seemingly without question.
Yours etc...
NSW had their state elections yesterday [23 March]. One of my old friends, xx, is active with the Greens whose Tamara Smith won the seat of Ballina NSW.....
I read their policies and want to send xx a question. Which is a serious question. A draft below which I did without resorting to google. So can you, also without resorting to google, tell me your thoughts?
Thanks
F
Draft follows....
I’ve read the NSW Greens policies and agree with most of them. I have a few questions. Here’s one, on their energy platform:
The NSW Greens are against nuclear power.
[Me]: To be expected, even if 4G nuclear power is the safest and quickest way to get to zero emission electricity production. Ok, that’s arguable to be sure, but anyway ignored entirely in their policy platform. [LATER: It's hardly arguable. The Gen4 Nuclear means no chance of meltdown and using spent nuclear fuel as its fuel].That aside, the Greens also want to “prohibit” the export of uranium ore. (Energy, Principle #9).
Some quick maths (I haven’t gone to Google for this, it’s off the top of my head, but the figures are broadly correct).
Australia provides about one-fifth of world uranium ore needs. (LATER: 16% but let’s not quibble)
There are about 400 nuclear power plants in the world with capacity of about 1Gw each. (LATER: 410+ but let’s not quibble)
Let’s assume that if we banned the export of Australian uranium ore it would not be made up by other countries. We must assume this, otherwise what would be the point of banning Australia’s sale of it?
So about 80 nuclear stations (one-fifth of 400) around the world would have to close, for lack of uranium feedstock.
That’s a global loss of roughly 80 GW of clean energy.
Australia has a capacity of about 60Gw of electricity production and the Greens want 100% of that to be renewable by 2030. (Attainable? Let’s not quibble).
But the Greens’ policy of banning the sale of uranium ore would reduce the amount of clean energy in the world by 80Gw or 33% more than Australia’s total electricity production.
In summary: even if Australia manages to convert all electricity production to clean renewables by 2030, banning Australian uranium or exports would add 133% of non-clean electricity to the world.
IOW, Principle 9 goes against the whole rest of the Greens policy platform of reducing carbon emissions.
How does that make sense?
What would Tamara Smith say? (just about the uranium ore issue. Nuclear plants are a whole ‘nother issue).
Maybe: the nuclear plants would not close down because they would get the ore somewhere else. Just not Australia. But then why reduce the employment and income Australia gets for exporting uranium ore, while doing a net nothing for the environment?
Or she might say: the closed nuclear stations could be replaced by renewables. Well... maybe.... But recent experience shows the opposite. When Germany and Japan closed down nuclear power stations in the wake of Fukushima,in both cases -countries with strong Green movements - the result was quick building and recommissioning of coal-fired plants to replace the nuclear, with a resultant jump in carbon dioxide emissions.
Or she might say: I’m only talking about the exploration and mining of uranium ore in NSW. Ok, but then what I say above still holds, but just for NSW. And it may well be that the policy is the same at the National Greens level and I can’t tell without googling which I can’t be arsed to do right now....
In sum: given the magnitude of the likely global loss of carbon-free energy from prohibiting uranium ore exports, it strikes me as odd that it’s a Greens policy platform “Principle”, seemingly without question.
Yours etc...
