Albanese on Energy and Climate

 Currently I rate Anthony Albanese as the smartest PM Australia has ever had. His new government hasn't made a misstep, despite temptations to make hurried populist decisions. However I have been intending to vote against Labor for the first time in 50 years of voting, because we can't afford 6 years of the government's energy policy as it has been expressed.

Yesterday we had two seemingly unrelated announcements: the creation of a tough Australia-wide Environmental Protection Agency; and the plan for the federal government to hold auctions to provide each state with firm, reliable, dispatchable, renewable energy.

I support nuclear power because, to my knowledge, there is no other way to make firm, reliable, dispatchable, carbon-free energy. And the government's auction shows that they understand the need for such energy.

The renewable energy business is always begging to be exempted from environmental rules. "Let us kill birds, dump used toxic solar panels in land fill, destroy river ecosystems, ..." they say. Maybe the creation of the EPA is to let them know that they are not going to get away with that. Below I list some possible contenders for this firm renewable energy, and why I don't think they will be acceptable. If you have other options, please let me know in the comments on twitter (https://twitter.com/rks987).

[For any non-Australian readers: The right in Australia is 2 parties that work together most of the time, the National Party in regional areas and the Liberal Party mostly in cities. After the left (ALP) won the last election the National Party leader said that he would like to work with the ALP on a bipartisan push to give nuclear energy the consideration it deserves. The new Liberal leader also, later, joined the nuclear push, but clearly wants to use it to split the ALP, rather than hoping for a bipartisan arrangement.]

So I wonder: Does Albanese have a plan to diffuse the whole energy-nuclear situation that threatens to split the ALP? If the auctions don't produce any acceptable solution then he can say "We did our best, but it seems that, as all other major economies are finding, nuclear is the only answer.". That will surely bring the voters on side. Of course, if they do find a good renewable solution then that will be even better. It could even split the Right.

Possible "firm reliable dispatchable" Renewable Energy options

1. Wood

A shocking amount of supposedly renewable energy is made by burning wood. This might be "renewable" over many decades, but in the medium term, to avoid 2 degrees rise, it is worse than burning coal. The wood wouldn't be from a new plantation, that takes too long. It would either be from an existing plantation intended for wood products, or it would be native forest. There is no way burning native forest will pass the EPA. If we burn wood intended for wood products, then we have to import instead for that use. I'll be surprised if that can be done.

2. Bush

To prevent bush fires we need to clear a lot of undergrowth in the forests. Maybe we could gather it and burn it for energy instead of doing preventative burning in place. I have no idea if there would be enough, but collecting it would be difficult. Also, burning in place leaves the ash as fertiliser, so this plan might not pass the environmental test.

3. Geothermal

There was an attempt in South Australia to drill to hot rocks for geothermal energy. You probably need to do fracking to get the fluid you pump down one hole to make its way to the other. Drilling technology has improved since then. However this would be experimental, so hardly biddable.

4. Dams

Dams are always an environmental disaster. If there were good places for dams we'd have done it already.

5. Tidal

Australia has some great tidal options, but they're in the protected and remote NW: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-15/why-the-kimberley-has-australias-biggest-tides/9875328

Climate Crisis: Getting the facts right

 There's still some denial, there's still some anger, but mostly Australia has moved on to bargaining ("we'll just buy carbon credits"), and sadness ("we'll do the minimum to be respectable").  It's time to move on to acceptance. Acceptance means accepting that the effects of climate change in Australia can't be averted by Australia's actions alone. We need a worldwide solution. What should Australia's role be in designing and implementing such a worldwide solution?

The world's actions or inactions are going to affect a lot of powerful individuals, businesses, and nations. So, not surprisingly, we are swimming in a sea of misinformation. This is normal in business, but this time we can't afford it. The world needs a powerful team to take on these powerful forces.

Australia can be a leader in such a team. Indeed, we can start by ourselves, while striving to bring others on board in a controlled way.

It isn't just misinformation. There's is also a simple lack of obviously needed numerical information. Here, for example, Simon Michaux does the sums on the materials needed for one popular proposed energy solution:

The Climate Crisis demands a serious response. It is an engineering problem, not a science problem. Scientists are useful because they are well informed, though often in narrow ways, and they are often lateral thinkers. Scientists are adding interesting information to the conversation, such as clever ideas for fusion energy, that just adds to the information overload.

Because this is a crisis, the government can say: "We are going to stop supporting a lot of research that has no relevance to preventing or adapting to climate change, and put that research effort into an organised effort to engineer solutions to that problem. We don't expect a unique solution to be found, as different solutions will have different pros and cons. Evaluating such pros and cons is a political process.".

1. Don't wait to act.

Investigations often delay action, but we can't afford that. We need to proceed as fast as possible based on our current understanding. But we need to investigate thoroughly and continuously and adjust course when that is indicated. Politicians hate to do that, since they like to pretend to a god-like omnipotence. It's time for them to support the scientists and engineers.

2. Get the numbers.

Ideally the initial team includes people who already have expertise in determining the numbers and in knowing the relevant literature and sources of information. A lot of work has been done, such as the seminal work of the late Professor Sir David MacKay (https://www.withouthotair.com/), up to and including Simon Michaux above. It should be possible to quickly put up an alpha-level draft based on such sources. We then expect a process of vigorous open discussion and debate to improve the numbers, which will then flow into the planning options and their associated pros and cons.

These numbers are not just about reducing emissions (from energy, concrete, etc) but also about removing CO2 in various ways (such as ocean fertilisation), and also reacting appropriately to climate change (such as helping species get to new locations, or preparing for sea level rise).

3. Brutal evaluation of information sources.

The real work of getting to the best solution is to find the sources of misinformation and label them as such. Most importantly we need to find individuals and organisations that are knowingly spreading misinformation and get them named, shamed, and removed from the process. This should involve judges and the legal profession. However interim orders need to be made quickly so that the total process doesn't get bogged down.

This is the scary bit because it involves rich and powerful individuals, organisations and even governments. In Australia we have seen how this can go, when the mining lobby's advertising campaign forced the government to retreat on a tax on super profits. Some of the beneficiaries of the fossil fuel industry are much more dangerous than that.

4. Australia's role

Australia is one of the richest countries in the world. It is in our interest to get this solved. First we should get involved in sorting out the facts, as above.

Total solutions don't have to be the same everywhere. Australia has a lot of renewables, so maybe that is the best thing for us to do, even though many places cannot do that (as David MacKay explained for the UK and Germany has proved). However I would like to see us designing and building and implementing solutions that can be applied in developing nations that will need, and deserve, the world's support.

Nuclear Future: China versus USA

The world is belatedly waking up to the fact that there is no route to net zero without a huge amount of nuclear power. The existing PWR reactors have been extremely successful and have proved to be extremely safe. However there are multiple opportunities for technological progress, and many of the world's requirements will not be met by the current designs.

At a government level, the USA has only recently become supportive of research into nuclear energy. However the entrepreneurial spirit in America has ensured that there are many private companies pursuing a range of designs. Some of them will now get more financial support and less regulatory obstruction.

Meanwhile in China the government has initiated research and put a lot of money into particular ideas. For example they have built a substantial experimental Thorium molten salt reactor. It seems this project was initiated by a CCP princeling.

This brings me to the reason why I expect the USA to come out the winner in this race. The Chinese are very strong on respect for authority, respect for superiors, respect for seniority. I expect that the people working on the molten salt reator, and others on other projects, are thinking "My job is to make this plan work that has come from above".

What you need to win is a commitment to the team effort, plus a respect for the enemy rather than respect for superiors. And for a technical challenge, like building a better nuclear reactor, the enemy is reality. Respecting reality means doing everything you can to understand it, and being willing and unashamed to retreat when you can't defeat it.

In a recent development there was a large improvement in powerful superconducting magnets. American researchers realised that they could now make a much smaller tokamak reactor. And being American they didn't file that thought away. Instead they said "Let's build it" and that's what they're doing.

I suppose it will be good if China works out how to make cheap safe nuclear power and saves the world from climate change. However I hope and expect that American competitive and entrepreneurial spirit will win the race.

P.S. There are other promising commercial ventures outside America, including Copenhagen Atomics in Denmark and HB11 (fusion) in Australia.

2 Plans to Progress towards CANZUK

CANZUK (https://grampsgrumps.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-canzuk-solution.html) has a lot of support, but is currently stalled. Here are a couple of ideas.

The CANZUK nations already have a theoretically unified head of state. In practice the Governor-Generals (GGs) act independently of the monarchy. In Australia there was a recent event where the GG believed that he should do whatever the PM said. I think if we asked the Australian people they would say that the GG should act as the umpire of politics and shouldn't do anything in secret. Anyway my suggestion here is that the Monarchy plus the 3 GGs should form an official CANZUK Head of State Committee to formalise the roles and keep them consistent. This will also keep the idea of a more significant CANZUK union in the public consciousness.

My 2nd idea is to progress greater cooperation between the UK and Australia. The two countries are complementary. The UK has a lot of people, but limited resources. Australia has resources, but would really like nuclear deterence, nuclear energy and compatibly educated people. A core problem is the distance, but this lends itself to leading the world with a high speed, low carbon shipping industry using nuclear powered ships. It would be great to get Canada involved also: https://grampsgrumps.blogspot.com/2022/08/failsafe-nuclear-shipping-and-canausuk.html.

Failsafe Nuclear Shipping and a CANAUSUK solution

 The NRC approval of a NuScale design is an important milestone for new nuclear power. The design features failsafe capabilities:

• The control rods which stop the chain reaction are not lowered by power. Instead they are held up with power and fall down without power, turning the reactor off.
• The cooling is by immersion in water which cools by convection. The water near the reactor warms and rises, moves to the side where it cools and falls, thus cycling around without the need of power.

For a nuclear powered ship we will use seawater to quickly cool the inner (pure) water, so that not as much is required normally. Power would be used to pump the seawater out, so that the ship doesn't carry more than needed, but when the power is cut the seawater will fill a space so that there is enough to do power-free cooling, as above.

I'm a supporter of CANZUK, in fact I independently invented the acronym before I knew other had beaten me to it (seven years ago: https://grampsgrumps.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-canzuk-solution.html). However we'll leave NZ out of the following because they are so anti-nuclear. Let us consider a CANAUSUK federation of Canada, Australia and the UK. Our united country might well be called The Maritime Kingdom, or Maritimia.

Maritimia is a natural ally of the US, but it is a parlimentary democracy and Kingdom. It is well connected by Internet and air transport, but to move substantial physical stuff around it would be nice if sea transport was faster and carbon-free. The ideal solution is nuclear powered shipping. A nice advantage that Maritimia has, is that it is not opposed to government led commercial activity. Indeed I think public acceptance of nuclear shipping will be enhanced if it was under the direct control of the well-trusted CANAUSUK governments,

Beyond that, the whole world will be well served by nuclear shipping free of carbon and other pollution. The CANAUSUK governments are well respected and I think many places would be comfortable using nuclear shipping from such a confederation government. Shipping is a part of the world's CO2 problem, and this is a way to address it.

Bonobos and sex symmetry and maybe us

Bonobos are the closest species to humans, looking similar to Chimps but with a very different social structure. Humans share many traits with bonobos, perhaps more than we always admit.

If you put a male and female bonobo together in captivity, then the slightly larger male will dominate and have preferential access to food and other resources. However if you put a male in with two females then the females will cooperate and dominate. That's how it was explained, probably in one of Frans de Waal's excellent books. But just recently I had a think about this.

There is a symmetry between the sexes which works like this: If one sex has some characteristic that is advantageous, then the other sex will have a significant reaction to this. Commonly they will want to evaluate how well individuals perform, but also they will adjust their behaviour to fit in.

So I wonder if it is really necessary for the two females to explicitly cooperate to dominate the male. It seems more likely the male has a different response when there are two females, based on the knowledge that they will cooperate.

I suspect humans are like that. If there are two or more women together, then men are inclined to behave themselves. However humans aren't like bonobos:

• Humans pair up to raise babies. Women prefer not to share a good husband if they can find one.
• Humans have mostly solved the problem of safe relations between one man and one woman. The real estate industry says that 90% of real estate decisions are taken by the woman in the relationship. I think this extends to all aspects of family life. In the main women dominate that part of life and most men are happy with that.

Most young men are happy to find a nice partner who will look after family life and tell them what to do. However there is a limited supply of such men. Rather than giving up, I think women should also be open to setting up a family situation with another woman (or even more), and keeping male company to well controlled situations where, in particular, more than one woman is present.

There are many cultures in which the male and female worlds are significantly separated so I think this sort of arrangement is quite compatible with human nature. Indeed I think many young women today bring men in to their bed in their parents' home. This is a safe way to start on adult life, and if babies arrive then grandparents are usually delighted to help with that.

Who to eliminate in STV (Preferential) Voting

I just worked out: You shouldn't eliminate candidates from the bottom (unless the following fails). Instead, eliminate every candidate who can't win on a preference distribution against any other remaining candidate. Thank you Brisbane and McNamara electorates (in the Australian 2022 election) for pointing this out.

If a seat elects N people then eliminate everybody who can't get a quota against any other set of remaining N candidates. This could be computationally expensive, particularly when combined with my method for determining the quota (https://grampsgrumps.blogspot.com/2020/06/counting-votes-in-optional-preferential.html) when every set will lead to a different quota.

In case anyone misses the point, this is why we sometimes fall back on eliminating the lowest vote: Suppose 3 candidates are left A, B and C. If A is left out B beats C, if B is left out C beats A, if C is left out A beats B. So my proposal doesn't eliminate anyone.

Another idea I had once was that we send the top two candidates to parliament, but when they vote in parliament their vote is weighted by their electoral vote. The main advantage of this is that it doesn't matter if electorates have different sizes, so they can be more uniform. To do this with the above plan: First do it as an electorate determining 2 winners, with quota 1/3. Then those two get all their first preferences plus votes transferred from eliminated candidates.

My understanding of COVID-19

Human cells that are in contact with the outside world include the gut, airways, and skin. These get replaced regularly because they are subject to damage and disease.

 Viruses infecting these externally accessible cells don't want to get into the blood stream and affect internal organs. They want people to be well enough to move around and infect other people. So we see that there are a lot of respiratory and throat viruses that cause mild disease, and this includes various coronaviruses.

The exceptions are diseases that have only recently made the jump from other species. Initially they can be quite dangerous. New variants will be more successful if they are milder. That's what we've seen with covid-19. Indeed, it doesn't seem unlikely that covid-19 will eventually settle down to be just another "cold".

When covid first hit, vaccination development started, and soon there was talk of the need to vaccinate the whole world. That didn't happen. The virus running unchecked in many poorer places led to variants, and concern was expressed that they might be more dangerous. But, as epidemiologists must have suspected, it was milder variants that won the day. One cannot help but wonder if this policy of benign neglect in other poorer countries was deliberate, or just, as it seemed to be, laziness. Sweden also let the disease run more than most richer places. Were they doing their bit to encourage milder variants?

Influenza never makes this change to milder variants. I presume this is because it is always making the jump from birds, so we're always dealing with new variants.

An interesting feature of the pandemic where I live was that there was initially denial that it spread through the air. So there was no recommendation to wear masks, though many did. At that time I tried to buy masks, but they were all sold out. Then the story changed and it was admitted that there was aerial transmission, and masks were recommended. And bingo, suddenly they were available everywhere. Was this a coincidence? I don't think so. They didn't want to even recommend masks when you couldn't get them. Soon after that they were required in many situations.

Transmission has always been low in outdoor settings with sunshine. So many of the bans that happened were undesirable. People would have been safer if they got some vitamin-D in the sun. I also think that we can provide more UV in indoor settings. A big UV lamp might be dangerous, but we can now provide strip lighting with small amounts of UV coming from multiple places and illuminating everywhere better than central lights. Unfortunately the anti-UV lobby has a big hold on the public imagination.