‘Unprecedented’ climate extremes are everywhere. Our baselines for what’s normal will need to change
November 28, 2024 , https://theconversation.com/unprecedented-climate-extremes-are-everywhere-our-baselines-for-whats-normal-will-need-to-change-244298
Extreme temperature and rainfall events are increasing around the world, including Australia. What makes them extreme is their rarity and severity compared to the typical climate.
A region’s “climate” is defined by a 30-year average of mainly rainfall and temperature. Increasingly, these climate definitions have become less appropriate – we need to look at events over shorter time periods to gain a more accurate picture.
We can see this in the recent worldwide proliferation of extreme flooding and prolonged heatwaves.
Using southern Australia as a prime example, our newly published research in Academia Environmental Sciences and Sustainability shows that machine learning techniques can help identify key climate drivers, supporting a redefinition of climate in a warming world.
Increasing ‘flash’ events
In Australia, eastern coastal regions of Queensland and New South Wales continue to receive record downpours and flash floods, interspersed by dry periods of a few months to a few years.
In stark contrast, southern coastal regions are drying and facing more extreme heatwaves. With already parched vegetation and catastrophic fire dangers, this region is experiencing drought conditions due to decreased cool season rainfall and increased temperatures.
Notably, flash droughts and flash floods have adversely affected both agricultural crop yields and grazing pasture quality. Flash droughts greatly reduce moisture for germination. Flash floods ruin crops close to harvest time.
The problem with these “flash” events is just how difficult they are to forecast. To make more accurate seasonal and annual predictions for rainfall and temperatures, we need to update our climate models. But how do we know which climate drivers need to be included?
Seeking a new normal
To keep track of typical climate conditions and provide context for weather and climate forecasts, the World Meteorological Organization uses a set of data products known as climatological standard normals.
They define climate as averages of monthly, seasonal and annual weather-related variables such as temperature and rainfall, over consecutive 30-year periods.
Climate normals can be used to assess how typical of the current climate a particular event was in a given location. It’s how we arrive at temperature anomalies.
For example, to tell whether a year was relatively “hot” or “cool”, we look at the anomaly – the difference between the average temperature for the calendar year in question, compared to the climate normal.
But extreme variations are now occurring in periods of ten years or even shorter. Consequently, multiple increases and decreases can cancel each other out over a 30-year period. This would hide the large changes in statistics of weather variables within that period.
For example, large rainfall changes in average monthly, seasonal and annual amounts can be hidden within 30-year averages. Global warming often amplifies or diminishes the impacts of multiple climate driver phases within approximately ten-year periods. When averaged over 30 consecutive years, some information is lost.
What did we find?
Over the past decade or so, machine learning (where computers learn from past data to make inferences about the future) has become a powerful tool for detecting potential links between global warming and extreme weather events. This is referred to as attribution.
Machine learning techniques are simple to code and are well-suited to the highly repetitive task of searching through numerous combinations of observational data for possible triggers of severe weather events.
In our new study, machine learning helped us untangle the dominant climate drivers responsible for recent flash flood rainfall on the east coast of Australia, and a lack of rainfall on the southern coast.
Along the southern coast, the cool season from May to October is typically produced by mid-latitude westerly winds. In recent years these winds were farther away from the Australian continents, resulting in the recent drought of 2017–19 and flash drought of 2023–24.
In contrast, after the 2020–22 La Niña, the east coast continues to experience wetter conditions. These come from generally higher than average sea-surface temperatures off the east coast and Pacific Ocean, due to the presence of onshore winds.
Machine learning identified the dominant drivers of the scenario above: the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, the Indian Ocean Dipole, and both local and global sea surface temperatures.
A key finding was the prominence of global warming as an attribute, both individually and in combination with other climate drivers. Climate drivers and their combinations can change with increasing global warming over shorter periods that contain extremes of climate. Hence, the use of 30-year periods as climate normals becomes less useful.
Finding regional attributes for better forecasting
Climate models often disagree on the climate drivers likely to be relevant to extreme events.
A key feature of machine learning is the ability to deal with multi-source data by identifying regional attributes. We can combine possible climate-driver predictors with high-resolution climate model predictions, especially after the climate model data are downsized to cover specific regions of concern. This can help with extreme event forecasting at a local scale.
Scientists are continuously developing new methods for applying machine learning to weather and climate prediction.
The scientific consensus is that global warming has dramatically increased the frequency of extreme rainfall and temperature events. However, the impacts are not uniform across the world, or even across Australia. Some regions have been more affected than others.
Currently there is no single alternative definition to the traditional 30-year climate normal, given the variable impacts across the planet. Each region will need to determine its own relevant climate time period definition – and machine learning tools can help.
Matt Kean says Australia must take ‘strong and decisive action’ on climate crisis despite Trump re-election
Chair of Climate Change Authority says ‘climate change waits for no one’ as pressure mounts on Coalition to dump net zero commitment.
Karen Middleton and Adam Morton, Thu 7 Nov 2024
The chair of the Climate Change Authority, Matt Kean, has declared Australia must take “strong and decisive action” to address the climate crisis despite Donald Trump’s return to the White House, arguing the world needs cheap renewable energy and the country can provide it.
Kean, a former News South Wales Liberal treasurer and energy minister, told Guardian Australia there were “enormous opportunities and benefits” in taking action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, no matter who was US president.
“We don’t know exactly what Trump will do, but climate change waits for no one and will spare no one and no country. That’s why we will continue to need to act – to take strong and decisive action to address this great challenge of our times,” he said.
“The world still needs cheap renewable energy, and the products that come with that, and Australia is in a very strong position to meet the world’s needs, and in doing so create huge jobs and prosperity for our country that we’ve never seen before
Kean said past evidence, including in Trump’s first term as president, showed states, territories and the private sector would continue to act. “I have no doubt that will continue to be the case,” he said
Anthony Albanese also recommitted to the government’s existing policies …………………………….
Initial advice from the authority found a 65-75% cut below 2005 levels would be “ambitious, but could be achievable”.
The government is not keen to reactivate the climate debate in Australia because the effects of climate change continue to generate anxiety in the community and Albanese is pushing a message of optimism about the future…………..
“But doing so because we see it as necessary if you are to be credible in achieving net zero whilst protecting Australia’s industrial base in the future
The Climate Council chief executive, Amanda McKenzie, emphasised the need for Australia to stay the course on the clean energy transition.
“During his first presidency, Trump tried to withdraw the US from climate diplomacy, but state and local governments powered ahead,” McKenzie said in a statement. “Countries and US states know the Trump playbook – and they’re determined to keep driving climate action forward……………. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/07/australia-liberal-national-coalition-net-zero-2050-commitment-donald-trump-us-election?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=soc_568&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1730983193
Matt Kean lambasts ‘wild fantasy’ of former Coalition colleagues to extend coal power and build nuclear plants
Climate Change Authority chair says Peter Dutton’s energy policy would drive up electricity bills and deter investment in renewables
Peter Hannam Economics correspondent, Guardian, 22 Oct 24
Extending the life of ageing coal-fired power stations before nuclear plants can be built is a “wild fantasy” that would deter near-term investment in renewables and push up power bills, according to Matt Kean, the Climate Change Authority chair.
The federal Coalition’s nuclear strategy was “an illiberal drive to intervene in the market-led energy transition [that had] been elevated from internet chatrooms and lobby groups to the national stage”, said Kean, a former energy minister in a Coalition government in New South Wales.
“The ‘delay-mongers’ have latched on to nuclear power despite the overwhelming evidence that it can only drive up energy bills, can only be more expensive, and can only take too long to build,” he told an AFR energy conference in Sydney on Tuesday.
“I suspect that even those arguing for nuclear don’t believe we’ll ever build one of these reactors in Australia … and certainly not in time to help manage the exit of coal from the system.”
The Albanese government appointed Kean, who has long advocated for more urgent climate action including by his then federal Liberal colleagues, to head the independent authority in June……………………………………………………… https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/22/matt-kean-fantasy-coalition-energy-policy-coal-nuclear-power?fbclid=IwY2xjawGFBTtleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZOLw35JiI_0LOuO7ud0lCdaODH8ws-XTXtm6BjH-aQRT5FT8Ac8UKeUTQ_aem_yTUmsY_z33BOm66Ol9MkEA
Western Australia Statement: Nuclear is No Climate Solution
| SIGN THE STATEMENT Please take action to protect WA from the threat of nuclear power by signing the statement “Nuclear is No Climate Solution.” Please help grow the support to stop Dutton’s nuclear power push in the West. |
| Unlike other states WA does not have a prohibition on nuclear power. With the Federal election increasingly uncertain we face a very real risk of a Federal Coalition advancing nuclear power in WA. We are pushing the State government to legislate a prohibition as the best legal protection against a Federal Coalition who seek to impose nuclear power in WA and we need your help to get the WA government to act. |
Peter Dutton’s proposal for WA is to build Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMNRs) at the Muja Coal fired power station in Collie which is due to be closed in 2027. There are new developments in the region for hydrogen power steel recycling, wind farms and battery storage all feeding into the South West grid.
The irresponsible and reckless nuclear proposal for Collie undermines and derails climate action, creates uncertainty for renewable energy investors and locks in gas and fossil fuels for longer. We cannot underestimate how serious Peter Dutton is on nuclear power and we do not have time to delay climate action.
You can download a sign on sheet to collect signatures and send back to us Nuclear Free WA c/o CCWA PO Box 883, West Perth, WA 6872.
Thanks so much for helping grow the momentum to stop nuclear power in WA.
Mia Pepper
Nuclear Free WA Committee Member
Climate Change Authority head Matt Kean contradicts Peter Dutton’s claim on nuclear and renewables working together
ABC News, By 7.30 chief political correspondent Laura Tingle
The head of the Climate Change Authority has contradicted the claim of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton that renewables and nuclear power can be ‘companions not competitors’, a claim that suggests a commitment to nuclear power will not derail the current transition to renewable energy.
Matt Kean is a former NSW Liberal energy minister and Treasurer, appointed by the Albanese government to chair the Climate Change Authority (CCA) earlier this year.
The Authority is due to make a recommendation to the government next month on what Australia’s 2035 emissions reduction target would be.
Mr Kean committed to making that target public.
On Monday, Mr Dutton spelt out some of his arguments in favour of nuclear energy, though he continues to decline to outline its cost.
The Opposition leader conceded on Monday that the upfront costs would be substantial but would ultimately prove cheaper than the cost of a transition to renewables, which he said was up to $1.5 trillion, partly because of the need to rewire the electricity system.
However, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has repeatedly quoted “the best guide to the cost” of the transition scheme being overseen by Labor was the Australian Energy Market Operator’s “integrated systems plan”, which he said “looked at the total cost out to 2050 of the entire generation, storage and transmission and came up at $121 billion”.
Asked on 7.30 whether nuclear had a role to play in Australia’s best energy mix, Mr Kean said that in the CCA’s recent review of pathways to net zero, “the CSIRO clearly set out the pathway to transition our electricity system and meet our commitments, international and domestic commitments, was renewables that are firmed up with technologies like batteries and storage.”
“That’s the pathway that’s been set out by the CSIRO that’s backed up by the Australian Energy Market Operator,” Mr Kean said…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-23/matt-kean-expert-advice-differs-peter-dutton-nuclear-plan/104386552?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other&fbclid=IwY2xjawFgNZBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHd_YcXBdgR0x85pH_9LerLMxZMbM4Pcqj1mtf4s4-_JFiJSf218SwO5KUg_aem_Zu8m5MVQhLz_j1FEJkC4PQ
Climate review backs solar, wind, hydrogen, not nuclear
Marion Rae, Sep 05, 2024, https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2024/09/05/climate-review-backs-solar-not-nuclear
An independent review of Australia’s climate response has found no need, or time, for nuclear to be added to the energy mix to reduce emissions.
The Climate Change Authority on Thursday released its review of the ways big-emitting industries must change for the country to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
“We need to seize this once in a generation opportunity to ensure Australia’s rapid and orderly transition as the world transforms to avert the worst impacts of climate change,” chair of the authority Matt Kean said.
But developers of renewable energy projects need to engage with regional communities about the energy transition, and better explain the benefits that can be shared, he said.
As well as solar and wind for electricity generation and batteries for energy storage, the rapid development of emerging technologies such as hydrogen will play a part, the review finds.
The authority steers clear of nuclear power, citing federal and state bans, other available technologies, the long lead time and the premium it would cost for a first-of-a-kind reactor deployed in Australia.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the independent advice confirms nuclear could not replace aging coal capacity fast enough to support Australia’s 2050 target.
“Any delay risks not just our energy reliability and security but our ability to act on emissions reduction and secure the future for the next generation,” he said.
But Kean warned the nation must overhaul supply chains, production systems, public and private finance, and workforces.
The advice comes as the federal government faces a deadline on declaring an emissions reduction target for 2035, with Australia within striking range of its legislated target of 43 per cent of emissions cut by 2030.
The Australian Conservation Council welcomed the analysis showing the country can meet and beat its 2030 ambitions and accelerate towards a 75 per cent by 2035 target.
The modelled scenarios make it clear the extraction of fossil fuels will need to be reduced and ultimately phased out, spokesman Paul Sinclair said.
“A high ambition 2035 target is critical to set a clear goal for the government’s Future Made in Australia strategy,” Sinclair said.
The Pathways Review was commissioned by parliament to provide independent and technical advice on decarbonising the economy.
Sectors covered include energy and electricity, transport, industry and waste, agriculture and land, resources, and the built environment.
The Greens said Australia could hit net-zero by 2035 but Labor was “crab-walking away from strong climate targets” while approving coal and gas projects that will run through to 2080.
“Labor are climate frauds. Small targets won’t stop the climate crisis,” leader Adam Bandt said.
How much water does nuclear really need?
The Coalition’s plan for atomic energy has raised concerns about the amount of water that reactors will use in a hotter and drier Australia.
AFR, Christopher Niesch, 5 Sept 24 .
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to build seven nuclear reactors in five states has put nuclear energy in the spotlight. While Dutton claims nuclear power is a zero emissions solution to the energy transition, Anthony Albanese’s Labor government says it will take too long to build, be too costly, and will use too much water.
Under the Coalition plan, there would be five large-scale power plants and two small modular reactors, with the first to be operational by either 2035 or 2037.
Based on the scant detail so far available, the CSIRO has estimated a total build cost of about $60 billion in today’s dollars for these facilities. Other estimates, based on actual build costs abroad, are much higher.
But Labor has raised concerns about the amount of water that the reactors would consume, especially in a hotter and drier climate more prone to drought in the 2030s and 2040s…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
In an interview with Sky News in July, then agriculture minister Murray Watt said nuclear power uses “substantially more” water than coal does.
“There’s a real question about where that water is going to come from, whether some of that water is going to need to be taken off farmers, and what farmers are going to have to pay for their water if there’s a competing use for that water,” he said.
Watt also said that based on international practice, farmers would need to take expensive steps during a nuclear leak and would need to inform their customers that they operate within the fallout zone.
Queensland Premier Steven Miles has also said nuclear power could risk the state’s water security, with water consumption at the proposed stations depleting water reserves during droughts.
As coal stations were decommissioned they would have given up their water rights, but nuclear power stations would have to use that water for their 80-year lifetime, Miles says.
…………………………………………………………………………Where will water for the reactors come from?
The water would be from the same sources that existing coal-fired plants use.
Dutton says that if elected to government the Coalition would build nuclear reactors at locations where there are closed or scheduled-to-close coal-fired power stations.
“Each of these locations offer important technical attributes needed for a zero-emissions nuclear plant, including cooling water capacity and transmission infrastructure,” he says. “That is, we can use the existing poles and wires, along with a local community which has a skilled workforce.”
None are now owned by the commonwealth, which Dutton suggests could be overcome by compulsorily acquiring the sites.
Five full-scale reactors would be built in NSW, Victoria and Queensland, with small modular reactors in Western Australia and South Australia.
How much water does green power use?
Johanna Bowyer, an analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, notes that solar and wind energy don’t rely on water and so the water currently used by coal-fired power stations could be used for agriculture instead.
And wind and solar energy could keep running at full capacity during times of drought, unlike coal or nuclear power.
Bowyer notes that there have been instances where coal-fired power stations have had to reduce their output during drought.
In 2007, the Tarong Power Station in Queensland cut its generation by 25 per cent in January and followed up with another 45 per cent cut in March to save water during the drought.
That water was also being used for drinking, so they prioritised that usage over the power station usage,” she says.
“Who knows what the future holds, but there’s some historical basis there for potential challenges, particularly during droughts. But it all depends on … the water cooling design for the nuclear power plant and it depends on how exactly they satisfy their water cooling requirements.
“That’s all really yet to be detailed in the Coalition’s plan.”
Where does all this leave the Coalition’s plan?
Dutton hasn’t released much more detail about his plans, so we can’t know exactly how much water they will use.
Nor is it clear how much water the small modular reactors (SMR) the Coalition is planning will use. more https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/how-much-water-does-nuclear-really-need-20240826-p5k5b6
Surging seas are coming for us all, warns UN chief
Katy Watson, 26 Aug 24
The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has said that big
polluters have a clear responsibility to cut emissions – or risk a
worldwide catastrophe.
“The Pacific is today the most vulnerable area of
the world,” he told the BBC at the Pacific Island Forum Leaders Meeting
in Tonga. “There is an enormous injustice in relation to the Pacific and
it’s the reason I am here.” “The small islands don’t contribute to
climate change but everything that happens because of climate change is
multiplied here.”
But eventually the “surging seas are coming for us
all,” he warned in a speech at the forum, as the UN releases two separate
reports on rising sea levels and how they threaten Pacific island nations.
The World Meteorological Organization’s State of the Climate in the South
West Pacific, external report says this region faces a triple whammy of an
accelerating rise in the sea level, a warming of the ocean and
acidification – a rise in the sea’s acidity because it’s absorbing
more and more carbon dioxide.
“The reason is clear: greenhouse gases –
overwhelmingly generated by burning fossil fuels – are cooking our
planet,” Mr Guterres said in a speech at the forum. “The sea is taking
the heat – literally.”
BBC 27th Aug 2024
Chair of Nuclear for Australia denies that calling CO2 ‘plant food’ means he is a climate denier
Dr Adi Paterson’s statements are apparently at odds with the group’s official position, which says nuclear is needed to tackle the climate crisis
Graham Readfearn, 17 Aug 24, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/17/dr-adi-paterson-nuclear-for-australia-climate-change
The chair of a leading Australian nuclear advocacy group has called concerns that carbon dioxide emissions are driving a climate crisis an “irrational fear of a trace gas which is plant food” and has rejected links between worsening extreme weather and global heating.
Several statements from Dr Adi Paterson, reviewed by the Guardian, appear at odds with statements from the group he chairs, Nuclear for Australia, which is hosting a petition saying nuclear is needed to tackle an “energy and climate crisis”.
Nuclear for Australia was founded by 18-year-old Queensland nuclear advocate Will Shackel, who has said repeatedly he believes reactors are needed to fight “the climate crisis”.
Two climate science experts told the Guardian that Paterson’s statements were misguided and typical of climate science denial.
Paterson defended his statements, telling the Guardian he was “not a climate denier”. He described himself as “a climate realist” and an “expert on climate science”.
In May, Paterson, who resigned in 2020 as the chief executive of the government’s Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, suggested on LinkedIn that concerns about climate change were “an irrational fear of a trace gas which is plant food”. He has been a regular guest on right-wing media outlets since the Coalition earlier this year said it wanted to lift the ban on nuclear and build reactors in seven locations.
On his Facebook page, Paterson has said that “cold is more dangerous than warm” and described a leading scientist as a “climate creep”.
On LinkedIn, he said US space agency Nasa was “deliberately confusing public understanding by publishing ground surface temperatures”, saying the agency’s climate work “should be given to a credible independent group. Defund NASA!”
In April, Paterson told an audience at the Centre for Independent Studies that “you can’t make a correlation between extreme events and climate” and said “no matter what you believe about carbon dioxide – it is plant food”.
“Increasing carbon a little bit is not going to dramatically change the climate. The plants will grow better,” he said, saying the planet was in a period of low CO2.
Prof David Karoly, a councillor at the Climate Council and a respected atmospheric scientist who has been studying the affects of CO2 on the climate since the late 1980s, said Paterson’s statements were typical of those from climate science deniers.
He said while CO2 levels were currently low in comparison to other times in Earth’s history, they were higher than at any time since the emergence of homo sapiens.
“He is misguided,” Karoly said. “CO2 has led to increases in temperature extremes, extreme rainfall, sea level rise and increases in bushfires and fire weather. CO2 has already dramatically changed the climate.”
Dr John Cook, an expert on climate change misinformation at the University of Melbourne, said Paterson was “regurgitating arguments” across a range of “thoroughly debunked talking points”.
He said: “It’s inconsistent to argue that CO2 is a trace gas which can’t possibly make any difference but at the same time claim that CO2 is going to green the planet.”
Shackel did not respond to questions. In an interview with the Guardian, Paterson argued the UN’s climate change panel “has made it very clear” that it was “not possible at this point” to link extreme events to changes in the climate.
But the panel’s latest report said it was “an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes”, with evidence for rising temperature extremes, extreme rainfall, droughts, tropical cyclones and more dangerous fire weather.
Paterson said he did think rising levels of CO2 were a problem and that fossil fuels needed to be limited “as soon as we can”. “It is a very, very serious problem but it is not a climate crisis,” he said.
He said he had been concerned about climate change for many years but said unduly worrying children over the issue was “a form of child abuse”, and “the chance of significant catastrophic events” occurring in the next 30 years “related to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere in the southern hemisphere” was “small”.
Paterson added he was more concerned about the “ecocide” from building wind and solar farms” than about climate change.
When glaciers calve: Huge underwater tsunamis found at edge of Antarctica, likely affecting ice melt.
Bulletin, By Michael Meredith | July 15, 2024
Antarctica is huge, it affects pretty much every place and every living thing on our planet, and it is changing. This should be a concern for all of us, and yet we know troublingly little about some key aspects of the great white continent.
Despite its position in the far distant south, Antarctica is a vital component in the functioning of the planet. It is central to global ocean circulation, thus exerting a profound influence on the world’s climate (Figure 1 on original). The vast Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica absorbs huge quantities of heat and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and distributes them around the rest of the world, thereby slowing the rate of global warming elsewhere. This “climate favor” has comes at a cost, however—the Southern Ocean is overheating and acidifying, with marked impacts on the marine ecosystem. The extra heat in the ocean is also melting the fringes of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, destabilizing its glaciers, and increasingly pushing up sea levels worldwide. The sea ice around Antarctica—formed in the fall and winter of the Southern Hemisphere, when the ocean surface freezes—has now reached record low extents, affecting the Earth’s energy budget and acting to further accelerate climate change.
All the information we have from Antarctica comes from sparse networks of sensors and equipment deployed directly, augmented with satellite measurements of the ice and ocean surface and computer simulations. While we know more about Antarctica and the Southern Ocean than ever before, it is still one of the least-well measured places on our planet, with some areas still remaining “data deserts.” We need to know more, so that we can better understand the causes of the changes happening here, how they will continue to change in future, and hence what the global impacts are likely to be.
One feature of the Southern Ocean that is often overlooked is how (and how strongly) it is mixed. This is a key process that redistributes heat, carbon, nutrients, plankton, and all other things in the sea, with profound consequences.
………………………………………glacier calving event had caused a sudden massive burst in the mixing of the ocean, stretching many kilometers from the ice front.
How did it do this? The data revealed that the glacier calving had triggered an underwater tsunami event. In essence, large waves (the height of a two-story house) were generated and moved rapidly away from the glacier, riding the interface between layers in the ocean that were tens of meters down. When these internal tsunami waves finally broke—like surface waves on a beach—they caused massive churn and mixing…………………………………………………………………………
This process—of glacier calving generating internal tsunamis and bursts of ocean mixing—is entirely absent from the computer models that are used to simulate our climate and ecosystem, hampering our ability to reliably project future changes. We need to know more about how this process works, how it will change, and what its consequences will be. ……. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-07/when-glaciers-calve-huge-underwater-tsunamis-found-at-edge-of-antarctica-likely-affecting-ice-melt/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter08152024&utm_content=ClimateChange_HugeUnderwaterTsunamis_07152024&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter08152024&utm_content=ClimateChange_HugeUnderwaterTsunamis_07152024
Now is not the time for nuclear energy
Ian Thistlethwayte, Wyong, August 5, 2024, https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2024/08/now-is-not-the-time-for-nuclear-energy/
I agree with Gaye Clark (CCN 449) that “technology has advanced significantly” in the field of nuclear energy and have no doubt that it could, and maybe should, be in the energy mix in the future.
I contend, however, that now is not the time for this.
Many of us are unwittingly lending weight to the imbroglio which is “post truth politics”.
Hopefully, the advice of experts with backgrounds in science, engineering and thermo-nuclear energy production is of far greater value than what we are told by some politicians, the mainstream media and social media.
This advice includes observations that if Australia was to plan for nuclear power in 2025, we’d be unlikely to see any production from its source before 2040.
Further, what is being proposed so far will meet no better than seven per cent of the nation’s energy needs in 2040.
It has been widely agreed that an average 1.5-degree-Celsius rise in global temperatures since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the upper limit of what can be quite realistically managed.
The current trajectory of warming could lead to runaway climate change.
It’s likely the 1.5-degree rise has either been reached, or will be very soon.
While greenhouse emissions continue almost unabated, we now have renewables.
They work, are working, and are already helping.
Investment diverted from renewables towards nuclear power now and into the near future will result in greater rates of environmental destruction.
We still don’t know whether nuclear power will be affordable.
In Germany, nuclear has effectively been abandoned and renewables now produce more electricity than all forms of fossil fuel combined – 57 per cent at the beginning of 2024, up from 45 per cent in 2019.
The UK is not far behind this trajectory.
We’re at 35 per cent renewables, aiming for 82 per cent by the end of 2030.
In 2030, there won’t be a single nuclear power reactor on Australia’s horizon even if we start planning for one today.
The USA is at 22 per cent renewables, while each year, to pay for secure storage of radioactive waste, its citizens are taxed a total of $6B US and rising.
Clean? Yeah… nah! Eventually, yes?
Technology keeps advancing, but for governments worldwide to provide for the future safety and wellbeing of their citizens, the phrase “time is of the essence” seems most apt.
My final thoughts about Australia’s immediate future with nuclear: unclear.
Furphies being advanced by some people seeking to hamper the adoption of renewable energy.
Ultimately, they would undermine (pun intended) Australia’s clean energy sovereignty and exacerbate damage to our environment.
Australia’s ‘carbon budget’ may blow out by 40% under the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan – and that’s the best-case scenario
The Conversation, Sven Teske, Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney July 2, 2024
The Coalition’s pledge to build seven nuclear reactors, if elected, would represent a huge shift in energy policy for Australia. It also poses serious questions about whether this nation can meet its international climate obligations.
If Australia is to honour the Paris Agreement to limit global average temperature rise to 1.5˚C by mid-century, it can emit about 3 billion tonnes, or gigatonnes, of carbon dioxide (CO₂) over the next 25 years. This remaining allowance is what’s known as our “carbon budget”.
My colleagues and I recently outlined the technological options for Australia to remain within its carbon budget. We did this using a tool we developed over many years, the “One Earth Climate Model”. It’s a detailed study of pathways for various countries to meet the 1.5˚C goal.
So what happens if we feed the Coalition’s nuclear strategy into the model? As I outline below, even if the reactors are built, the negative impact on Australia’s carbon emissions would be huge. Over the next decade, the renewables transition would stall and coal and gas emissions would rise – possibly leading to a 40% blowout in Australia’s carbon budget.
Australia has a pathway to 1.5˚C
Earlier this year, my colleagues and I analysed the various ways Australia could reduce emissions in line with the 1.5˚ goal…………………………………………………………………………. more https://theconversation.com/australias-carbon-budget-may-blow-out-by-40-under-the-coalitions-nuclear-energy-plan-and-thats-the-best-case-scenario-233108
Does the nuclear ‘plan’ add up? Australia’s carbon emissions under the Coalition’s proposal
Professor Clive Hamilton, 2 July 24, https://news.csu.edu.au/latest-news/does-the-nuclear-plan-add-up-australias-carbon-emissions-under-the-coalitions-proposal
The recent proposed nuclear power plan announcement by the federal Opposition prompted a Charles Sturt University climate change analyst and a colleague to model the necessary energy sources implied by the plan. They found that it doesn’t add up.
- A Charles Sturt University analysis of the Opposition’s nuclear power proposal finds that relying on nuclear power to attain net zero by 2050 would require four times as many nuclear power plants to be built in the 2040s as the Coalition currently plans
- The analysis indicates that the increasing reliance on gas generation implied under the Coalition’s plan would result in Australia having much higher carbon emissions through to 2050 than under the current renewables roll-out trajectory
- The analysis indicates that slowing the pace of the renewables roll-out implied or stated by the Coalition would have a severe negative impact on the renewables industries but would be a major boost to the gas industry
The recent proposed nuclear power plan announcement by the federal Opposition prompted a Charles Sturt University climate change analyst and a colleague to model the necessary energy sources implied by the plan. They found that it doesn’t add up.
Charles Sturt University Vice-Chancellor’s Chair of Public Ethics Professor Clive Hamilton and colleague the highly respected energy expert Dr George Wilkenfeld have analysed the implications for Australia’s emissions path of the Coalition’s nuclear plan and how it might help to meet the commitment to net zero by 2050.
The Coalition announced that it plans to commission seven nuclear power stations by 2050 and said it would abandon the government’s 2030 target of reducing the nation’s emissions by 43 per cent (compared with 2005 levels).
Professor Hamilton said their analysis shows that the Coalition’s nuclear strategy, if it met its stated aims, would see nuclear plants account for approximately 12 per cent of total electricity generation by 2050.
“The slowed pace of the renewables roll-out implied or stated by the Coalition would result in renewables supplying 49 per cent of total supply, compared with 98 per cent under Labor’s plan, and gas generation supplying approximately 39 per cent, compared with two per cent under Labor’s plan,” he said.
“It would likely have a severe negative impact on the renewables industries but would be a boon to the gas industry.
“With high continued supply of electricity from gas under the Coalition’s plan, attaining net zero emissions by 2050 would be out of the question.”
Professor Hamilton said the modelling indicates that attaining net zero by 2050 would require four times as many nuclear power plants to be built in the 2040s as the Coalition currently plans.
“Under Labor’s renewables plan, Australia’s electricity emissions are expected to decline year on year until they reach almost zero on 2050,” he said.
“Under the Coalition’s plan for nuclear power, a declining emphasis on renewables and an unavoidably greater role for fossil fuels means emissions from the electricity sector in 2050 would be nearly 19 times higher than under Labor’s plan.”
The full analysis was published in Renew Economy on Thursday 27 June.
Newly identified tipping point for ice sheets could mean greater sea level rise
Small increase in temperature of intruding water could lead to very big increase in loss of ice, scientists say
A newly identified tipping point for the loss of ice sheets in Antarctica and elsewhere could mean future sea level rise is significantly higher than current projections.
A new study has examined how warming seawater intrudes between coastal ice sheets and the ground they rest on. The warm water melts cavities in the ice, allowing more water to flow in, expanding the cavities further in a feedback loop. This water then lubricates the collapse of ice into the ocean, pushing up sea levels.
The researchers used computer models to show that a “very small increase” in the temperature of the intruding water could lead to a “very big increase” in the loss of ice – ie, tipping point behaviour.
It is unknown how close the tipping point is, or whether it has even been crossed already. But the researchers said it could be triggered by temperature rises of just tenths of a degree, and very likely by the rises expected in the coming decades.
Sea level rise is the greatest long-term impact of the climate crisis and is set to redraw the world map in coming centuries. It has the potential to put scores of major cities, from New York City to Shanghai, below sea level and to affect billions of people.
The study addresses a key question of why current models underestimate the sea level seen in earlier periods between ice ages. Scientists think some ice sheet melting processes must not be yet included in the models.
“[Seawater intrusion] could basically be the missing piece,” said Dr Alexander Bradley of the British Antarctic Survey, who led the research. “We don’t really have many other good ideas. And there’s a lot of evidence that when you do include it, the amount of sea level rise the models predict could be much, much higher.”
Previous research has shown that seawater intrusion could double the rate of ice loss from some Antarctic ice shelves. There is also real-world evidence that seawater intrusion is causing melting today, including satellite data that shows drops in the height of ice sheets near grounding zones.
“With every tenth of a degree of ocean warming, we get closer and closer to passing this tipping point, and each tenth of a degree is linked to the amount of climate change that takes place,” Bradley said. “So we need very dramatic action to restrict the amount of warming that takes place and prevent this tipping point from being passed.”
The most important action is to cut the burning of fossil fuels to net zero by 2050.
Bradley said: “Now we want to put [seawater intrusion] into ice sheet models and see whether that two-times sea level rise plays out when you analyse the whole of Antarctica.”
Scientists warned in 2022 that the climate crisis had driven the world to the brink of multiple “disastrous” tipping points, including the collapse of Greenland’s ice cap and the collapse of a key current in the north Atlantic, disrupting rains upon which billions of people depend for food.
Research in 2023 found that accelerated ice melting in west Antarctica was inevitable for the rest of the century, no matter how much carbon emissions are cut, with “dire” implications for sea levels.
The new research, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found that some Antarctic ice sheets were more vulnerable to seawater intrusion than others. The Pine Island glacier, currently Antarctica’s largest contributor to sea level rise, is especially vulnerable, as the base of the glacier slopes down inland, meaning gravity helps the seawater penetrate. The large Larsen ice sheet is similarly at risk.
The so-called “Doomsday” glacier, Thwaites, was found to be among the least vulnerable to seawater intrusion. This is because the ice is flowing into the sea so fast already that any cavities in the ice melted by seawater intrusion are quickly filled with new ice.
Dr Tiago Segabinazzi Dotto, of the UK’s National Oceanography Centre, welcomed the new analysis of the ocean-ice feedback loop under ice sheets.
“The researchers’ simplified model is useful for showing this feedback, but a more realistic model is highly needed to evaluate both positive and negative feedbacks,” he said. “An enhancement of observations at the grounding zone is also essential to better understand the key processes associated with the instability of ice shelves.”
Nuclear more costly and could ‘sound the death knell’ for Australia’s decarbonisation efforts, report says
Peter Hannam Economics correspondent, Guardian, Fri 28 Jun 2024
A nuclear-powered Australian economy would result in higher-cost electricity and would “sound the death knell” for decarbonisation efforts if it distracts from renewables investment, a report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) argues.
The report comes as ANZ forecast September quarter power prices will dive as much as 30% once government rebates kick in. A separate review by the market watchdog has found household energy bills were 14% lower because of last year’s rebates.
BNEF said the federal opposition’s plan to build nuclear power stations on seven sites required “a slow and challenging” effort to overturn existing bans in at least three states, for starters.
Even if they succeeded, the levelised cost of electricity – a standard industry measure – would be far higher for nuclear power than renewables. Taking existing nuclear industries in western nations into account, their cost would still be “at least four times greater than the average” for Australian wind and solar plants firmed up with storage today, Bloomberg said.
“Nuclear could play a valuable, if expensive, role in Australia’s future power mix,” the report said. “However, if the debate serves as a distraction from scaling-up policy support for renewable energy investment, it will sound the death knell for its decarbonisation ambitions – the only reason for Australia to consider going nuclear in the first place.”
Bloomberg’s analysis complements CSIRO’s GenCost report that also found nuclear energy to be far more costly than zero-carbon alternatives. Australia’s lack of experience with the industry would result in a learning “premium” that would double the price of the first nuclear plant, according to the CSIRO.
Bloomberg also found that assuming the opposition’s seven plants had a generation capacity of 14 gigawatts, they would supply only a fraction of the total market.
If governments tried to rely on inflexible generators – whether coal-fired or nuclear – as renewables increased, they would have to resort to subsidies and other market interventions at a cost to taxpayers, Bloomberg said.
“This report speaks for itself,” the energy minister, Chris Bowen, said. “It’s another example of experts confirming that nuclear energy is too slow, too expensive and too risky for Australia.
“The Albanese government’s plan is the only plan backed by experts to deliver clean, cheap, renewable power available 24/7, and get us to net zero by 2050.”
Guardian Australia sought comment from the opposition energy spokesperson, Ted O’Brien.
ANZ, meanwhile, expects residential electricity prices to begin to see big falls starting from next month as federal and state rebates take effect.
@ANZ_Research predicts electricity prices in the September quarter could fall by 30% as fresh rebates kick in. That would lop a large 0.7 percentage points off the inflation rate (to be recovered later unless the rebates continue). pic.twitter.com/fjHWP8duEn— @phannam@mastodon.green (@p_hannam) June 27, 2024
From 1 July, all households in Queensland get a $1,000 rebate, those in Western Australia the first of two $200 rebates and nationally the first of four $75 rebates from the federal government will arrive.
In the September quarter, ANZ estimates consumer prices will fall 0.7 percentage points, temporarily dampening overall inflation – assuming those rebates aren’t extended again.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will also release its annual market inquiry report on Friday. It showed that without the federal government’s energy rebates in the May 2023 budget the median residential energy bill would have been 14%, or $46.64, higher across all regions…………………………………….more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/28/nuclear-energy-report-australia-expensive-decarbonisation-renewables
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 