Yeah, that's pretty much in line with what the CSIRO were saying. They said a 1 in 100 year event woud become a 1 in 2 year event, but this was discussing the effect of sea level rise on extreme storm surges. It wil be these extreme surges that will effect properties on the coastline most (and the extremes are becoming more extreme).

The extreme weather events that you are talking about, which have been occuring more often, has caused a massive increase in the amount the insurance industry has been forking out for claims worldwide, and it's for this reason that the insurance industry is more concerned about climate change than most others (for example IAG and Swiss Re are both members of the australian business roundtable on climate change).

Regardless of the money he has made or where it goes, Al Gore’s talk has contributed to massive action in addressing an issue that affects not only us, but all species.

I read peer-reviewed scientific literature, written by climate scientists.

Bryce, it sounds like you’re a tentative proponent of nuclear then?

I think when it comes to considering the nuclear power option in Australia (in the absence of any other existing alternative baseload power options), we should weigh up the costs for and against. There is no doubt that we need to significantly reduce our GH emissions quickly, and nuclear is certainly a way of making significant emission reductions (assuming we’re replacing existing coal-fired plant), if not all that quickly.

I believe the main weaknesses of nuclear to be (not counting the environmental cost of mining, as we’ll be doing that to meet world demand anyway!):

– Ethical/intergenerational equity/environmental/cost concerns surrounding waste management and plant decommissioning. Storage has always been, and will continue to be a major issue!

– Requires a finite fuel (I read somewhere recently that if the world was powered by uranium fission, our uranium reserves would only last ~10 years).

– Further investment in centralised supply infrastructure, to the detriment of investments required for distributed generation (ie renewables).

– High public and private cost. Where will funding come from, if not from government? Ie may encounter difficulties in raising investment funds, with little public confidence and higher risks and hence discount/interest rates..

It is these, and the many more issues, that we should weigh against the costs of not introducing nuclear power (as one mitigation technology among many), namely higher CO2 concentrations and the resulting warming.

I think that a lot more can be done in the area of energy efficiency, renewables and fuel switching (to gas) to reduce our emissions before we seriously consider nuclear. I believe by the time nuclear comes online in Australia on a large scale (ie in 20-30 years), we’ll have proven renewable technologies that can provide baseload power. But hey, it’s not about addressing climate change is it? It’s all about resource exploitation!

I say we leave nuclear power generation to the countries who already have it..

PS Bryce, you’re right, there is a pilot geosequestration/storage project occurring just out of Warrnambool (injecting ~100,000 tonnes over a 2 year period). The focus for this project is on researching a broad suite of monitoring technologies. There is also a commercial project planned off the WA coast (Gorgon) which was announced a couple of weeks ago. This will be the largest geo project in the world (ie ~3 million tonnes pa).

MarkP

Folks! There is some good discussion here, but not all accurate.

You have so far covered three separate topics. Ozone depletion, global dimming and of course climate change.

As Bryce rightly pointed out, the hole in the ozone layer is caused by the emission of ozone depleting substances (mitigation measures for this came out of the Montreal Protocol). A lack of ozone exposes us to higher levels of UV radiation. Emission levels have dropped radically, however it will take some time for the ODS’s to dissipate in the atmosphere.

“Global dimming” is caused by aerosols (small particles suspended in the atmosphere), that scatter incoming solar radiation and hence cool the earths surface. Global dimming is having a dampening effect on global warming. Emissions of aerosols are also dropping.

Climate change is happening. It is beyond theories. We are now seeing physical evidence worldwide. Also agree with Bryce that Al Gores movie is a great place to start to educate yourself on this.

I could talk about this stuff all day, but in a nutshell:
– we are now at ~420 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere (Stern review).
– CO2 levels for the past 800,000ish years (as shown by some ice cores taken in Antarctica), have been in the range of 200ish to 280ish ppm (we are looking to hit 550 ppm by 2050). Temperature tracks CO2 levels.
– we have observed an almost 1 degree increase in temperature (global average) since the start of the industrial age. Word is if we stop emitting GH gases now, temperatures would increase by a further 2 degrees.
– as pointed out by Gore, the difference between the last ice age (when the US was under 1 km of ice) and today is 5 degrees. In the first 10,000 years following the last ice age, global average temperatures increased by ~0.5 degrees every 1000 years (Flannery).
– this is the only truly global issue/threat, affecting all species. And the more one learns the more frightening it is.

Other points (apologies Gamay, but I must disagree with you on a number of points):

– Power plants do not create oxygen! Tree’s do. Geosequestration will in no way effect oxygen levels.
– Heat from power plants does not cause increased temps. The radiative forcing of GH gases does (ie CO2, methane, sulphur hexafluoride etc). oh, and water vapour. Oh, and natural cycles (milankovich cycles etc). I could discuss feedbacks, but I fear losing people.
– Coal fired plant (new build) can now achieve 45%+ efficiencies through supercritical steam. Retrofitting capture technologies to existing plant for geosequestration is certainly very expensive (particularly for less efficient plant), however other technology exists to make the capture of CO2 easier ie oxyfuel firing.
– In an ideal world we would be generating all our energy from renewable sources (and it is something that will occur in the future), but unfortunately there are technological and economic barriers that will delay extensive uptake (not to mention the powerful lobby groups).

But do agree with Gomay that energy efficiency (in household, business, industry and transport) will play a major role in reducing global emissions.

Could say so much more..

MarkP