Previous OurSay
Next OurSay
Click here to see other OurSays. You have 7 votes per OurSay!
Stephen Mayne, John Thwaites, Fran Bailey, OurCommunity.com.au, CC
in
“Communities in Control ”
Open
Ged Kearney, ACTU, Secure Jobs. Better Future., Josh Peak
in
“Secure jobs for a better future”
Closed
Cr Cathy Oke, City of Melbourne
in
“Rio Plus 20 Agenda”
Responses up
Crikey, House of Representatives, Adam Bandt MP, Your question
in
“The People's Question”
Responses up
Campbell Newman
in
“The Queensland Agenda”
Responses up
Andrew Demetriou, Amanda Vanstone, Charlie Pickering
in
“The Australian Republic”
Responses up
Anna Bligh
in
“The Queensland Agenda - Part 1”
Responses up
Prof. Noam Chomsky, Deakin University
in
“Contours Of Global Order”
Responses up
666 ABC Canberra, UC, Canberra Refugee Support, Julie Posetti
in
“Reporting Refugees”
Responses up
John Merritt, EPA
in
“EPA Victoria”
Responses up
Robert Manne, The Quarterly Essay
in
“Bad News”
Responses up
Andrew Demetriou, Kevin Sheedy, Matthew Richardson
in
“AFL Finals Panel ”
Responses up
The Climate Agenda, Michael Bachelard, Misha Schubert, Deborah Gough
in
“The Sunday Age”
Responses up
You?, Greg Hywood, Mark Scott, Sophie Black
in
“Australian Media Leaders”
Responses up
Kelly O’Dwyer, Deb O’Neill , Larissa Waters
in
“Women in Politics”
Responses up
David Thodey
in
“Telstra CEO David Thodey”
Responses up
The Hon. Martin Dixon MP, Vic SRC
in
“Victorian Education Minister”
Responses up
Margaret Simons, Anna Krien, Tim Soutphommasane
in
“Quarterly Essay”
Responses up
Malcolm Fraser
in
“Renewing Democracy”
Responses up
Q&A
in
“Q&A - After The Budget - May 16th”
Responses up
The People's Question
In February, Crikey.com.au and OurSay gave you the opportunity to get your question asked in House of Representatives through a secret MP.
Crikey.com.au featured a new reader's question each week, and looked at where/how and why of the issue.
After voting closed, it was revealed the secret MP was Adam Bandt, the member for Melbourne. He plans to take the top question on the OurSay site (which is about end-of-life decision-making) into parliament house on Wednesday the 14th of March. Stay tuned to our website, Facebook page and Twitter for updates.
The Question
My question is to the Minister for Energy. The recent Draft Energy White Paper contained the following statement: "The best case supporting future consideration of nuclear power would be the failure to commercialise new low‐emissions baseload energy or energy storage technologies within the timeframe that economic analysis suggests is necessary to meet long‐term global and national emissions reduction objectives (from 2025 onwards)". My question to the Minister, then, is: What is that timeframe? How long do renewable energy technologies have to prove themselves capable of supporting a low-carbon energy future for Australia, and what is the standard of that proof?
I have read the Beyond Zero Emissions' report: ZCA2020, and I know that it's not only possible for Australia to start seriously investing in renewables NOW, but it's highly desirable, from every point of view.
Bronwyn, suffice to say that the BZE ZCA2020 report does NOT constitute sufficient proof that renewable energy technologies are capable of supporting a low-carbon energy future for Australia. There are significant critiques identifying serious flaws in that report (see http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/), and those critiques have never been substantially addressed. The standard of proof has to be considerably higher, involving actual major construction and sustained (i.e. year-round) significant contribution to grid electricity production, consistent with a trajectory towards substantive decarbonisation soon after 2025.
Yes, please, let's get this question answered! Those of us who are serious about eliminating emissions need to see that the government is progressing us towards the alternatives. Plenty of voices are saying that we can replace (not reduce, but replace) our carbon-fuelled power stations with renewables, but there are no voices telling us that the government is serious about 100% non-carbon power. Can renewables supply 100%? With this question, we can make sure that an utterly independent, and totally expert advice is supplied to the Minister to put before Parliament. If the answer is no, renewables can't do it, we need to know urgently what can supply us with non-carbon power, and when. After all, what is the point of taxing us for using carbon, unless we are to be supplied with non-carbon alternatives to use instead?
I would say that the time for "renewables" to prove themselves has been and gone. some european countries such as spain invested heavily in renewables over the last 10 years with minimal effect on their carbon dioxide output, and california has been subsidising renewables since the 80s and yet still only 2% of their electricity demand is supplied by it. Nuclear power is the only current technology capable of provide low emission baseload electricity, and emerging technologies in the field of nuclear power largely neutralise concerns about waste storage and weapons proliferation. Given that such plants will take time to build we need to start investing in this now. with the money wasted by gillard on the new Clean Energy Finance Corporation to achieve a 5% we could build nuclear reactors capable of a 20% reduction in emissions.