Australian Parliament passes law requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2020

Good.. good.. The article says: The law would quadruple the renewable energy target set by the previous government in 2001 and provide enough clean electricity to power the households of all 21 million Australians.

Here is a map for the future to consider:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/env...

truthist wrote:

Good.. good..

What's so doubly good about this part of it?

"Sen. Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens minor opposition party, said the target should be 30 percent and that big polluters were offered too much government assistance."

"But its executive director, Don Henry, said it was disappointed that more compensation had been granted to big polluters and that the costs would be "unfairly borne by households and small business."

The government is protecting it's own interests in the coal industry and taxes will pay for the biggest polluters to keep polluting, while the general population will just keep paying and paying every increasing power and water bills.

There's real big business on the share markets for carbon credits these days!!!

The poor man always pays twice.

truthist wrote:

Good.. good.. The article says: The law would quadruple the renewable energy target set by the previous government in 2001 and provide enough clean electricity to power the households of all 21 million Australians.
Here is a map for the future to consider:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/env...

You wrote:

Gottaliv wrote:

<quoted text>
What's so doubly good about this part of it?

Read above.

<quoted text>
"Sen. Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens minor opposition party, said the target should be 30 percent and that big polluters were offered too much government assistance."
"But its executive director, Don Henry, said it was disappointed that more compensation had been granted to big polluters and that the costs would be "unfairly borne by households and small business."
The government is protecting it's own interests in the coal industry and taxes will pay for the biggest polluters to keep polluting, while the general population will just keep paying and paying every increasing power and water bills.

Thanks for responding. I started the thread. I don't pretend to know as much as you do about your situation.

<quoted text>
There's real big business on the share markets for carbon credits these days!!!

Is there a remedy?

<quoted text>
The poor man always pays twice.

Does he have to! We have invented religion, government, courts, justice, taxation, shools, science, etc.

Let's talk about how we can improve the lot of the comman man, woman, or child. Remember any one of us can become that person in any moment soon even if not before or now.

truthist wrote:

Good.. good.. The article says: The law would quadruple the renewable energy target set by the previous government in 2001 and provide enough clean electricity to power the households of all 21 million Australians.
Here is a map for the future to consider:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/env...

time for nuclear power and fast breeder reactors

Let's talk about how we can improve the lot of the comm[o]n man, woman, or child. Remember any one of us can become that person in any moment soon even if not before or now.

Tweeter wrote:

<quoted text>
time for nuclear power and fast breeder reactors

Why do you say that? How do you suggest we go about it?

There's two approaches to this announcement, it looks good and judge this by their past efforts. Considering they subsidise the big polluters already to the tune of billions each year, they have now more than tripled that subsidy. Whilst the people pay more and get less.

They passed the legislation but have no plans whatsoever which will attain the stated goal. The subsides they provide for alternative energies, are out of the range of the average person, more so than before. The subsidies are only available if you use government accepted installers and they have more than doubled their charges, with their monopoly they can't be challenged.

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>Why do you say that? How do you suggest we go about it?

It's clean, safe and a renewable energy source with all the plutonium produced.

The fast breeder or fast breeder reactor (FBR) is a fast neutron reactor designed to breed fuel by producing more fissile material than it consumes. The FBR is one possible type of breeder reactor.

The reactors are used in nuclear power plants to produce nuclear power and nuclear fuel.

The breeding of plutonium fuel in FBRs, known as the plutonium economy, was for a time believed to be the future of nuclear power. It remains the strategic direction of the power program of Japan. However, cheap supplies of 'off the shelf' uranium and especially of enriched uranium have made current FBR technology uncompetitive with PWR and other thermal reactor designs. PWR designs remain the most common existing power reactor type and also represent most current proposals for new nuclear power stations.

Palawa wrote:

There's two approaches to this announcement, it looks good and judge this by their past efforts. Considering they subsidise the big polluters already to the tune of billions each year, they have now more than tripled that subsidy. Whilst the people pay more and get less.
They passed the legislation but have no plans whatsoever which will attain the stated goal. The subsides they provide for alternative energies, are out of the range of the average person, more so than before. The subsidies are only available if you use government accepted installers and they have more than doubled their charges, with their monopoly they can't be challenged.

I could not agree with you more.

How can we improve the situation? What are the possible avenues?

Tweeter wrote:

<quoted text>
It's clean, safe and a renewable energy source with all the plutonium produced.
The fast breeder or fast breeder reactor (FBR) is a fast neutron reactor designed to breed fuel by producing more fissile material than it consumes. The FBR is one possible type of breeder reactor.
The reactors are used in nuclear power plants to produce nuclear power and nuclear fuel.
The breeding of plutonium fuel in FBRs, known as the plutonium economy, was for a time believed to be the future of nuclear power. It remains the strategic direction of the power program of Japan. However, cheap supplies of 'off the shelf' uranium and especially of enriched uranium have made current FBR technology uncompetitive with PWR and other thermal reactor designs. PWR designs remain the most common existing power reactor type and also represent most current proposals for new nuclear power stations.

I could not agree with you more.

When do you see a shift to a Pu economy? There were some oil or U price tradeoffs in the past. However, both have not been a good measure on this. France or Japan have proceeded on their own.

France or Japan ha[s] proceeded on their own.

Tweeter wrote:

<quoted text> time for nuclear power and fast breeder reactors

Until such time as the 'waste management' for NP is successfully addressed then NP is a very good thing to stay away from.

At the moment the waste is stored in containers and planted underground. That's what all the hoo haa in Oz was about last year as the US wanted to use Australia as their dumping ground for their nuclear waste...as if the US wasn't big enough to find a place to store their own waste! It was supposed to be buried somewhere in Nevada (in a mountain I think) but Obama stopped the funding for that. Why???

And if NP was so "good" why hasn't the US built anymore plants as the existing ones supply only 20% of the electricity now and no new plants have been built there for decades despite many applications to build them.? Wasn't it such a good idea after all? These are the questions that need answering before we commit to NP.

Japan and France recycle their waste but there's still much left over from the re-cycling and it's not a recommended (by the experts) practice anyway. It's a big big problem for the future.

Besides all that, it seems the majority of Australians don't want nuclear plants in this country...and I'm one of them.

truthist wrote:

Let's talk about how we can improve the lot of the comm[o]n man, woman, or child. Remember any one of us can become that person in any moment soon even if not before or now.

Elect a government who is actually "FOR the people". As the chance of that happening is pure fiction (because people are a commodity which governments use to their advantage and manipulate as they see fit) then I guess things will remain as they always have been.

Besides "renewable energy" - what is the government's plan on their current situation: severe drought.

National Graphic says "What is happening in Australia,... should be a cautionary tale to the rest of the world that it's important to prepare now for more severe drought.

"In some regions, as happened in Australia, global warming will lead to abrupt regional change. In Australia, it arrived. In other regions, too, the changes will be rapid and sudden and confronting."

Amicus Curiae wrote:

Besides "renewable energy" - what is the government's plan on their current situation: severe drought.
National Graphic says "What is happening in Australia,... should be a cautionary tale to the rest of the world that it's important to prepare now for more severe drought.
"In some regions, as happened in Australia, global warming will lead to abrupt regional change. In Australia, it arrived. In other regions, too, the changes will be rapid and sudden and confronting."

The government is doing nothing about our drought and water crisis and never will.

Gottaliv wrote:

<quoted text>
Elect a government who is actually "FOR the people". As the chance of that happening is pure fiction (because people are a commodity which governments use to their advantage and manipulate as they see fit) then I guess things will remain as they always have been.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. We are in the 21C and communicating across the globe on Topix. I am thinking .. and feeling.. things are not the same as before. Perhaps there is hope for better ways for us on EARTH regardless of where we live.

Palawa wrote:

<quoted text>
The government is doing nothing about our drought and water crisis and never will.

What do you think they should be doing?

Actually there's not much they can do under the present approach, because profit and economic growth are the only thing they represent. Growing of animals for foods uses huge amounts of water, as does mining and the growing crops which are not suited for our environment.

Really the only way to stoop the slide in this and every country is to remove a very large proportion of the human population, other than that, things will just continue down hill under the guidance of the ideological fatalists who are running the country.

Palawa wrote:

Actually there's not much they can do under the present approach, because profit and economic growth are the only thing they represent.

Those are the only things that matter and I'm all for it.

truthist wrote:

Good.. good.. The article says: The law would quadruple the renewable energy target set by the previous government in 2001 and provide enough clean electricity to power the households of all 21 million Australians.
Here is a map for the future to consider:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/env...

Great idea, but providing energy for a population of 21 million is relatively easy compared to a population of 300 million or 475 million, which are the populations of the US and EU. Regardless the oil producing nations of the world are going to rake in the money, especially the Russians.