Category Archives: Nuclear Power and Climate Change

Welcome to 2015… the year dispatchable electricity became redundant???

Hello! I took a long, much needed break for Christmas and New Year and I’m back, refreshed and ready to go for 2015.

It’s going to be another huge year for nuclear. I think I have said that for the last two years in a row, and each time I have been right! We live in exciting times, and the efforts of a lot of hardworking and talented people worldwide are yielding much needed change in the nexus of energy, climate and nuclear technology. For what I think is an outstanding wrap-up of the state of eco-play, do take in this summary piece from The Breakthrough Institute.

The new thing for me this year is I can already see nearly the whole year in advance! I have so many exciting commitments and some big upcoming events that it seems 2015 is already full! Now, that’s not quite true of course but it’s full enough that it will be big stuff indeed that gets a seat at my table this year, and the word “no” will be my new friend. Dial back to my beginnings in around 2011 and I was hard at work drumming up opportunities to bring the nuclear message. That situation has inverted and I could not be happier. This change in fortunes speaks of both serious changes in the social and cultural environment around nuclear in Australia and also the in-roads my work has made over a period of years. For that latter number in particular I have you, my readers, to thank. You share my work and the regular feedback I get behind the scenes does wonders for morale and energy!!!

My first peer-reviewed publication should see press in a matter of weeks, and I intend to back that up with two further publications this year as part of my thesis under the watchful, expert and (let’s face it) occasionally smug guidance of my supervisory team of Conservation Bytes and Brave New Climate. I’m honoured to add to that team Professor Tom Wigley, with whom I co-authored a critique last year (along with James Brown) of the Australian chapter of the Deep Decarbonisation Pathways Project. Tom and I will be picking up where we left off there with some original work to bring what we feel is some much-needed improvements to that concept. That’s a dream-team of supervisors and I am honoured to have them in my corner. I have great research in development, and I’m gagging to get my teeth back in and bring them to print.

I am pleased to have accepted a position on the Public Advisory Panel for the siting of Australia’s low and intermediate level radioactive waste repository. Run through the Department of Industry, the panel will be meeting approximately monthly for the next year or so. I am really heartened by what I have seen so far vis-à-vis the intent of the Department to take a different and very positive and pro-active approach to this process. That I have the opportunity to contribute ongoing is an honour.

I will likely be out of the country with exciting nuclear commitments twice in the first quarter of the year (more details on that as I am able), I look forward to assisting my friends at Energy for Humanity as they advance their own exciting agenda, and I will be assisting several other parties who are doing what they can to advance a sensible discussion of climate change and energy for Australia. Yep, a big year and I can’t wait.

If I had to forecast I would say you can expect fewer posts from me this year, but hopefully they will be high quality and impactful when they come. For a great nuclear fix, get stuck in to The Actinide Age and Nuclear Layperson: two of the better new nuclear blogs that are really hitting their stride. In the meantime, here’s a little something that got my goat…

Late last year, Barry Brook and Corey Bradshaw co-authored an outstanding paper that presents the broader eco-case for nuclear energy. The upshot of the findings is this: in an energy-hungry world of what will soon be ten billion people, energy planners need to start presenting a much expanded role for nuclear energy in scenarios of potential energy mix. That’s if we care about biodiversity, that is. To protect and preserve the most habitat, we need to both use more energy (to intensify activities like agriculture for example), and to use energy that takes up the least space. That’s nuclear, most especially advanced nuclear. The paper was so impressive that 75 leading conservation scientists from around a dozen nations signed an open letter in support of the general conclusions.

I was able to get my hands on some of the “expert response” provided to media. Here’s some of what Professor Mark Diesendorf, of the University of New South Wales, had to say:

“In promoting a ‘key role’ for nuclear energy, Brook and Bradshaw claim to have performed an ‘objective’ analysis of seven electricity generation technologies according to seven criteria. However, their choice of criteria, their values and weightings are all subjective and biased. For instance, they chose dispatchability [the ability to adjust power output on demand] as one criterion, thus disadvantaging wind and solar PV. But, that criterion is redundant…

Firstly, Brook and Bradshaw do, indeed, use dispatchability as a criterion. That will, indeed, work against the rating of technologies like wind and solar PV. But is this decision “subjective and biased”? This inference is quite the double-standard from Diesendorf. His mini-canon of papers on this subject are predicated on the up-front exclusion of nuclear power in the design and modelling of a low-carbon energy system, before any modelling, assessment or weighting is even undertaken. Brook and Bradshaw do no such thing: the low-carbon technologies or wind and solar PV are included for due consideration across the same criteria as all others.

Diesendorf says the inclusion of dispatchability is a mistake and that this criterion is “redundant”(meaning, to be quite clear, not or no longer needed; superfluous).

As the great Saganism goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So what is the evidence? Diesendorf cites two studies: his own, and work from the Australian Energy Market Operator. I happen to like the papers by Elliston, Diesendorf and MacGill, in that I think they are good, useful contributions and they are well-written. What I really dislike is that Diesendorf in particular leverages the results in ways that are completely out of proportion to the findings themselves. In this case, he says:

because hourly computer simulations of the Australian National Electricity Market with 100% renewable energy, by separate teams at UNSW and the Australian Energy Market, show that combinations of several variable and dispatchable renewable energy technologies can be just as reliable as the existing polluting system.

Mark, I’m going to have to stop you right there because you seem to have contradicted yourself in the space of a single sentence. The evidence cited appears to suggest that a combination of both variable and dispatchable sources was required to deliver a satisfactory result in both studies. So… redundant? It would seem not.

Maybe if the dispatchable sources were bit-players in the modelled systems this would strengthen the case. Are they? Let’s check Diesendorf’s own study.

This passage is from page 609 of his 2011 paper Simulations of scenarios with 100% renewable electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market, published Energy Policy 45 , 606-613.:

4.6. Generation mix summary

The generators in the baseline scenario, including their location and capacity, are summarised in the list below. The generators are dispatched in this order:

(1) Wind: existing wind farm output scaled to 23.2GW

(2) PV (14.6GW total):

(3) CST (2.6GW per site, 15.6GW total):

(4) Pumped storage hydro (2.2 GW)

(5) Hydro without pumped storage (4.9 GW)

(6) Gas turbines, biofuelled (24.0 GW)

In the above generation mix, gas turbines, pumped storage hydro and hydro without pumped storage are dispatchable power sources. Concentrating solar thermal (CST) in this study has “15 full-load hours of thermal energy storage” making them also dispatchable for the most part.

Of the 84.5 GW total installed capacity to make the system work, 46.7 GW are dispatchable. Fifty-five percent of the available capacity. In a previous piece, I have outlined just how dependent the system is on these sources.

On the basis of Diesendorf’s own work, I would say dispatchability is about as redundant to reliable electricity supply as oxygen is to reliable cellular respiration. Which is to say, not redundant at all. Meaning this expert response falls utterly flat, having tripped over subjectivity and bias of the sort that leads to fatal over-reaching. The work of Brook and Bradshaw stands with no solid response.

Troublingly, some in the academic and environmental community pig-headedly stand in opposition to robust science that may point us in the direction of the most sustainable, most biodiverse planet we can achieve come 2050 as our 10 billion fellow humans seek to meet their needs and fulfill their aspirations.

We deserve better than that.

“Dear Giles…” A letter to the editor of RenewEconomy

Dear Giles,

Some friends brought to my attention that a recent article at Reneweconomy provided, shall we say, a rather creative review of my presentation to the Brisbane Global Cafe on November 12, 2014 at Brisbane City Hall (Memo Coalition: If you want to talk nuclear, talk about its costs)

What really delighted me about your piece is how familiar it is. I have experienced this kind of criticism before. It’s craven, lilly-livered, sniping, over-worked and under-cooked. I know exactly where it comes from. It comes from people who, despite every determined effort and expectation to the contrary, found themselves compelled by an argument in opposition to their own. No sooner have the clanging alarm bells of cognitive dissonance subsided than the pant-damaging realisation sets in that if you found it compelling… imagine what the audience thought.

Oh no…oh no…whatever will I do now? I know… I’ll attack the person. I’ll spin them and their message so hard and so fast that my audience will come to associate him and his name with everything they hate. I’ll contest his contentions with my own Ouroboros of references that are to peer-reviewed literature what cow dung is to caviar. That’ll do the trick.

Well Giles, perhaps it will but on this I’m sure we can agree: it’s a lot harder to pull off when the cameras are running and I am wearing personal voice recorders now, isn’t it?

So let’s revisit your article and compare the assertions with the footage. You said:

In a recent presentation to the Peabody Coal-sponsored energy seminar in the lead up to the G20 meeting in Brisbane, for instance, nuclear cheerleader Ben Heard blamed everyone from lefties to greenies for the current state of the nuclear industry.

Goodness me… did I? Perhaps I dozed-off during my own boring presentation but… I didn’t actually provide any commentary whatsoever on the fate, fortunes or current state of the nuclear industry. I had 15-20 minutes to speak to about 200 guests from around the world and… no, just reviewing my scripts, not a cracker on this topic.

Perhaps you mean question time? Just checking the voice file…no. Sorry, no questions on that topic, and no discussion. What are you talking about? Were you thinking of this article perhaps? You better believe I sheet home some serious responsibility to the environmental movement. But it wasn’t mentioned in this session.

On that topic of responsibility, I like the way you linked me to session sponsor Peabody Coal. I saw what you did there!

I was the guest of event organisers Brisbane Marketing. I didn’t know who was sponsoring this or any other session and nor did I care. The first I knew of Peabody Coal in this event was when I ferreted through my showbag in the hotel room the night before to find their malodorous marketing material.

The fact is I don’t give a monkey’s whether it’s Peabody Coal, Anglo Coal or Old King Cole sponsoring an event. I say what I want to say because I represent myself. So, what did I have to say about coal on this day? Check in at 2 m 20 s.

At 820 g per kWh, we will be spending this week enjoying our time with one of the dirtiest electricity supplies in the world…This brown coal power station is responsible for 19 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year… In the fight against climate change, places like Loy Yang are ground zero. If we aren’t succeeding in driving plants like that out of our economies, we aren’t succeeding at all… we can see the machines simply raking away strip after strip of land. Never to grow trees, never to grow food, never to host biodiverisity. Just sacrificed in our addiction to coal.

Did you see the Peabody execs fist-pumping at that bit? No? Me neither. Funny, I don’t know about you but I did not score an invite to to the Peabody-sponsored lunch after the session… do you think it was something I said?

But back to what you said:

Heard, meanwhile, did the usual pro-nuclear thing of attacking renewables – criticising their “intermittency” a disingenuous meme we hear often in the government and conservative commentariat.

Wha… the Government and conservative commentariat? The last public thing I had to say about the Government was this piece chastising Treasurer Joe Hockey for not understanding our greenhouse accounts. In an earlier piece I criticised the climate policies of the Coalition, Labor and Greens all at once.

As to attacking renewables… did I? That would be a little bit split-personality of me since in two recent and highly viewed pieces I have argued for policy that would all-but-ensure renewables meet 20-30 % of Australia’s electricity requirements.

No, what I did was point out accurate and relevant limitations to what renewable technologies can deliver us in the face of the epic scale of the challenges we face. “Intermittency” is not a conservative political value, it’s an operational reality.

Heard, for instance, argued that wind farms take up too much space – omitting to note that the land can and is used for grazing, crops and other farming activities.

Did I? Have a look from 9 m.

We can look at the size it takes to provide 1320 MW of wind power. It’s 13 kilometres squared of the best windy territory.

This is correct. I didn’t talk about other land use because I wasn’t talking about land use! I was illustrating an issue about energy density and the area required to provide 1320 MW peak wind power. Sure, use the land in the middle for grazing, crops and other farming activities. It still takes that much room in prime wind country to provide that much peak wind power and that’s a real concern when people argue for 100 % renewables. What else did I say, that you omitted to report? 9 m 40 s

I’m a supporter of renewable energy. I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing. Am I prepared to bet the climate on it? No. Am I prepared to bet the provision of reliable electricity for those who need it, on it? No. No I’m not.

That’s the divider. I’m behind renewables without being so myopic as to imagine they will do it all, with lives of the global poor as my chips on the casino table.

Meanwhile the “pot shot” I took at Ivanpah is a simple and troubling fact and one you acknowledge in your own circular referencing: they, the proponents of the project, do not control the weather. What did I actually say? 10 m 25 s

That is the risk in building a 100 % renewable energy system based on climatic systems.

If you have a few of these systems it doesn’t matter much. It’s a low level of penetration, so a crap year of output hurts the investors, primarily. The existing system reserves can deliver when the renewables fail. Like for South Australia’s successful integration into the NEM of wind. It has piggy-backed on the robustness of the existing system which, I might add, is quite ok by me. The issue here is the notion of 100 % renewables based on climatic variables. That’s an entirely different proposition that you seek to downplay or simply ignore. It’s a challenge that former US Energy Secretary Steven Chu was quite clear about this week in Canberra for the launch of the World Energy Outlook (see my Twitter feed from the day). Was he taking “pot shots” too?

You then seek to use the example of Hinkley to big-up the cost challenge of nuclear.

Mate, I beat you to it. No sooner were the costs announced than I criticised it as too expensive to get the job done on a global scale, a piece that was then republished and widely read. In it I concluded:

Nuclear power is clean. It’s safe. It’s efficient. It can make a big difference, fast. Waste can be managed until we use it as fuel, and fear of radiation can be defused. It is, as I have said, great value. What advocates cannot do is make it cheaper than fossil fuels when it isn’t, in a world with weak consensus on climate change action and lackluster energy planning.

We need to keep working for that climate consensus, for sensible long-term policy to support massive clean energy and to overcome the ill-conceived objections to nuclear. At the same time we urgently need a stronger and more visible vision and plan for better nuclear prices and faster roll out, and this needs to come from the industry.

Is that the conduct of a nuclear cheerleader? According to you “what they – and the pro-nuclear advocates – never mention is cost”. I mention cost all the time. Like in this article with Barry Brook. Cost is a real issue for nuclear. It’s not some fairy tale of the rusted-on anti-nuke. It’s real and it’s something I want to see people talk about more, not less, provided the discussion is well informed and in context of our options.

That the cost-problem is the same, but much worse, for dispatchable renewable technologies is why we called for a technology-neutral policy to reward firm capacity from zero-carbon sources in a competitive way. If nuclear loses that fight, fine, I really don’t care. What I care about is decarbonisation.

So Giles, please work harder. This type of writing is garbage. You deliberately and blatantly misrepresented me and the session and, in so doing, kept your loyal readership in the dark.

If nothing else mate, a tip: next time check for cameras?

Kind regards,

Ben Heard; Director: ThinkClimate Consulting; Doctoral candidate, University of Adelaide; blogger and commentator through DecarboniseSA

Nuclear power isn’t “economically feasible” in Australia, but…

This post was written by Barry Brook and me and published today in The Conversation


No sooner had foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop announced that Australia should take a fresh look at nuclear power than Prime Minister Tony Abbott responded that nuclear power would only be supported if it was “economically feasible” and would not receive government subsidies.

Tony Abbott can rest easy in his position knowing this much to be true: thanks to an oversupply of incumbent, polluting electricity in the Australian market, nuclear energy is not economically feasible in Australia … but neither is any other new energy source without a policy to guide investment.

We do it for renewables …

Such a policy is exactly what the Renewable Energy Target is doing for renewable sources, and we are currently seeing what happens when you introduce uncertainty into the sector.

Cut the large-scale renewable energy target, and wind development will halt on a dime.

Cut the small-scale renewable energy scheme, and feed-in tariffs and rooftop solar will fall off a cliff.

Remove carbon pricing (as Australia did in July this year), and serious investment in carbon-capture and storage technology becomes a fantasy.

There is no policy-free pathway to replacing Australia’s established and highly polluting coal- and gas-fired power stations.

Too much electricity

Abbott’s position is reinforced by the current level of over-supply in the National Electricity Market.

Thanks to the combination of an exodus of several large industrial customers in the industrial and manufacturing sector, influx of new wind and solar with the assistance of the Renewable Energy Target, and a greater emphasis on energy efficiency in households, we have seen in the last few years a waning demand for electricity while supply remains high.

So there is no market incentive for investment in new large generation such as nuclear power … or anything else for that matter. Even if there were, this would just be new clean generation on top of old dirty generation.

Whether one prefers the flavour of solar, wind, geothermal, wave or nuclear power, the fact is nothing much will change in the foundations of the Australian energy scene in the foreseeable future unless we demand change. We are not running out of cheap coal; we have to choose to DO something.

Cleanest technologies

However, if we decide that we want to generate electricity without increasing carbon emissions, the story is completely different.

According to the updated Australian Energy Technology Assessment 2013, the five lowest-cost electricity-generating technologies, based on dollars per kilowatt hour, are, in ascending order:

  • Wind, on-shore
  • Fixed solar photo-voltaic (no tracking of the sun’s movement)
  • Gigawatt-scale nuclear light-water reactor
  • Other biomass waste power plant (wood)
  • Single axis tracking solar photo-voltaic (tracking the sun in one axis).

These costs are projected for 2020, based on recent trends in electricity costs using the metric “levelised cost of electricity” (LCOE). All of these technologies produce zero carbon emissions at the point of generation, and we would expect all of them would do well under a policy that sought a major increase in zero-carbon electricity.

The problem of supply

But these very different technologies also come with a range of economic advantages and disadvantages.

For instance, solar panels and wind turbines have the advantage of incremental expenditure (you add relatively small amounts of new generation at a time) which is easier to finance.

But the electricity they generate is at the whim of climate: without storage, they depend on the sun shining and the wind blowing.

This is the difference between capacity and generation, which the LCOE costs we refer to above don’t account for. While we can install a certain capacity of wind and solar, we can guarantee it will not generate electricity at that level all the time.

As we explore in an upcoming paper (along with co-author Corey Bradshaw), this is not a big deal when variable generators such as wind and solar are only used at low levels (currently, variable renewables provide less than 5% of total supply in the market). In this situation, there is always spare capacity from other sources such as hydro, coal and gas waiting to take up any slack.

At high levels (literature suggests more than 20-25% of total generation), however, the tables turn very quickly. There comes a point when adding more variable energy sources just won’t make economic sense. Nor will it increase the reliability of the overall system.

To fill the gap, we need a source with a large capacity factor that depends on a storable fuel rather than favourable weather.

On these criteria, nuclear power stands out in the top five. It is more sustainable and is more scalable than biofuels that brings with it major negative impacts in land-use and air quality. And it doesn’t depend on the weather like solar and wind. Nuclear power stations in Australia could provide close to full power at all times.

Another way of saying this is that nuclear offers a complete “plug-in” replacement for the role that coal-fired power stations play in the electricity system, both in the amount of electricity supplied, and its reliability.

Earlier work from one of us (Barry, along with Tom Biegler and Martin Nicholson) confirmed that nuclear is the most cost-effective substitute for coal that would respond earliest to a carbon price.

More recent work from Barry, Sanghyun Hong and Corey Bradshaw at the University of Adelaide found that an optimal scenario of zero-carbon electricity for Australia included nuclear providing more than 40% of total electricity.

Zero carbon, technology neutral

So, what’s the best way to level the playing field?

First, we need to rescind the arbitrary prohibition of nuclear energy in Australia. To that extent we welcome the statements of foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop.

Second, we need a technology-neutral clean energy target. One of us (Ben) argued recently, that a 95% Clean Energy Target that is open to all technologies (not just renewables), which offered differentiated payments between variable and non-variable electricity sources, would likely make big winners out of solar and wind in the early stages, followed by a swing toward nuclear in the near future. Such a policy would put the arguments of economic viability to the only test that really matters: the market.

But, to go back to where we started, in the absence of that type of policy for change in our energy sector, any such future is stalled.

Nuclear, in the current context, is uneconomic in Australia. But so are large-scale renewables that will meet demand.

The marketplace is a societal construct, not a natural law. Provided the atmosphere is treated as a free dump, and climate stability is treated as inconsequential to our well-being, the market winner in Australia is incumbent coal. That won’t alter unless we demand change.

Thanks for having me Women in Nuclear, Sydney 2014

It was my absolute pleasure to join the Women in Nuclear Conference in Sydney today to join their panel discussing communication with Government and Community. For those familiar with my material, I delivered a slightly modified (less practice, more swearing) version of the presentation I delivered to the ATSE Nuclear conference in 2013. That presentation has been professionally animated and narrated and is available here.

I was delighted to be joined by Nadia Levin of ANSTO and Irene Aegerter of Energy for Humanity. I spoke third, and a better lead in I could not have asked for with two excellent presentations. Both Nadia and Irene covered themes of great relevance to my message, particularly the need for branding in the very positive sense of the word: creating a compelling vision of what nuclear technology has to offer.

[Aside: I felt a bit of a fan-boy sitting next to Irene. Founder of Women in Nuclear, physicist and now integral to Energy for Humanity, an organisation I am proud to be associated with. She’s also hilarious and delightful. I tried to play it cool for about five seconds then gave up]

There was a strong response to the presentation and some extremely gratifying feedback. This related particularly to some of the simplicity of the message: gain trust first, educate and inform later. Both your warmth and your competence matter, but use warmth before expecting competence to be of value in discussing nuclear. I give a big nod to Suzy Hobbs-Baker for bringing the warmth/competence literature to my attention, it was a valuable enhancement of this content. I was particularly moved by a question and later discussion from South African delegates. How are we supposed to talk about nuclear being better than coal when these people don’t even have electricity? It’s a very good question and I was glad to help suggest some new approaches. To paraphrase the feedback: “We have been doing this all wrong. We have been going in and talking about atoms when these people don’t even have electricity. They need to trust us and know that our priority is bringing them what they need”.

Something I believe in very strongly is that the role of young nuclear professionals as rule-breakers and game-changers for a conservative industry is huge. For young women professionals as a subset it is even more important. Nuclear is a powerfully gendered issue. Bringing forward and up our women professionals is more than gender politics: it’s of critical importance to the future of an industry that needs to build much greater community acceptance. That makes it very, very good business and the nuclear industry needs to urgently embrace and developed young professionals and especially young women.

That being the case, it was a privilege to join WiN today, a pity to leave so quickly, and I hope the beginning of great things to come. My special thanks to Jasmin Craufurd-Hill for the invitation and coordination.

Inexcusable disinterest: Fudging Australia’s per capita emissions

I have worked hard, over time, to ensure this is a non-partisan blog. By that I mean, the messages I have are for all players, and I don’t actually care who is running the country.

However it is not, and never will be, a politically disinterested blog. I care, very much, how the country is being run, no matter by whom.

I have made strident criticisms of Labor, Liberal and Green parties as and where they deserve it. I have expressed my intention to seek climate advantage from the current Government. Today however, criticism again flows to the Liberals.

Today, it has been reported that Treasurer Joe Hockey gave a scathing dismissal of a question relating to Australia as among the highest GHG emitters in the OECD. This from The Guardian

“The comment you just made is absolutely ridiculous,” the treasurer said in an interview with the BBC when it was suggested to him that Australia was among “the dirtiest, most greenhouse gas-emitting countries in the OECD group of developed countries”.

“We’ve got a small population and very large land mass and we are an exporter of energy, so that measurement is a falsehood in a sense because it does not properly reflect exactly what our economy is,” Hockey said.

“Australia is a significant exporter of energy and, in fact, when it comes to coal we produce some of the cleanest coal, if that term can be used, the cleanest coal in the world.”

The Treasurer is wrong and there is no need for nuance in saying so.

Australia’s ranking in the OECD excludes the emissions from our energy exports, in the same way that they exclude the embodied emissions in our imports from China.

If we counted that thermal coal export in our emissions… as you can see below, we export five times the energy in black coal than we consume domestically

As Australia’s Treasurer, this type of mistake can only come from inexcusable disinterest in the topic.

It may be true that those who care not at all about climate change can still build nuclear power plants and slash greenhouse gas emissions.

But it makes it a damn sight less likely.


When good men do nothing

Your regular climate, energy and nuclear programming will return shortly

I have some questions for Australia’s men.

If you were there when Jill Meagher was being dragged down an alley by Adrian Bayley toward her rape and death, would you have done something?

If you were there when Darcy Freeman was about to be dropped to her death by Arthur Freeman, her own father, from Melbourne’s Westgate Bridge in an act of twisted revenge on the child’s mother, would you have done something?

If you were there when Mayang Prasetyo was being murdered by her boyfriend Marcus Volke, who went on to dismember her remains, would you have done something?

What if you were there, in my childhood community, when the mother of two of my school mates was murdered by her partner? She was assaulted so violently she was found pinned to the mattress with a knife where she bled to death, the man having fled and driven himself to his death under the wheels of an oncoming truck. I’ll never forget the faces of the boys when they came to school, having been robbed of the most important thing in their world. Her name, ironically, was Joy.

I’m pretty sure I know the answers, for most of you, to these questions. You would have acted to stop it. Because the fact is, most Australian men are good, brave men when we are called to be. Most of us simply are not there when this is about to happen. Brendon Keilar and Dutchman, Paul de Waard, proved it on our behalf when, in 2007, they intervened to save Kara Douglas from a violent assault. It cost Keilar his life. De Waard and Douglas were maimed.

This stuff is hard to write about. I hope it’s hard to read about. The sickening fact is I could go on because at a rate of about one per week, an Australian woman loses her life to the man in her life. We men, we who are meant to be the protectors of the vulnerable and the weak, we who are meant to stand in defence, we are killing the ones who chose to trust us and the ones born into our care with stupefying regularity.

I’m not going to call it domestic violence. That simpering term serves to set this class of violence apart as somehow less serious, less the business of others. I’m with Charlie Pickering. When we say domestic violence, what we mean is men’s violence against women. To stay one step ahead of the trolls, yes, men are also subjected to domestic and sexual violence. Less than one percent of the violence experienced by men occurs in the domestic setting. For women? It’s one third. Men are predominantly impact by violence committed by, that’s right, men.

So for my regular readers I’m going to talk about men’s violence against women for the same reason I talk about nuclear power versus coal more than I do about LED light vs incandescent: we are morally and pragmatically obligated to tackle our biggest problems first and hardest, and our biggest problem here lies with men. Anyone saying differently is a coward.

Let’s also be clear, the difference between good men and bad is a matter of degree. There is a long pathway of behaviour and choices that men can explore that determine the sort of society we create and accept for our women. For every act that demeans, degrades and undermines our girls and women that some men choose to ignore, permission is implied to some other men to move to the next step. And the next. And the next. Make no mistake, at the end of that road lies violence, terror and death for our girls and women.

Society is a bell curve. We will, sadly, always have with us men who are capable of terrible acts. But how many men, how often they will act, how easily they are permitted to pass through those gateways of increasingly dangerous behaviour unchallenged, unpunished, reading our implied permission, developing a taste for, and a level of comfort with, the notion that women can be treated in these ways… that is a societal choice. It’s a choice we all need to take a damn sight more seriously.

And what about when the man himself is struggling? What about when he needs help? What about when he is not ok, when he is hurting? When he is playing out his own history of abuse in strange ways? We men need to be there for each other and our boys to offer safe, supportive outlets. These demons will not be contained, and too often their release will be directed at vulnerable people… behind closed doors… when no one else is there.

Speaking of demons, this is not the preaching of an angel. I’m a man in this society too, complete with my own shortcomings and failings. Maybe it’s something to do with raising a daughter, but I’m now choosing to live with my eyes wide open to the realities of the society we men are choosing to make, and my part in it. Open your eyes with honesty and you won’t believe the things you see.

Only so very rarely will we good men be there when violence is about to happen. So if we can’t be there?

We need to be here, at one of the many White Ribbon Day events coming up in November.

If I’m right about you, if I have read you truly, and you would step in if you were there, visit the site, find your local event and take part.

In 1867 philosopher John Stuart Mill said “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing”.

If we are the good men, then doing nothing dishonours us. It’s the choice we must stop making.

Like what you see here? Please subscribe to the blog, Like Decarbonise SA on Facebook and follow @BenThinkClimate on Twitter. Read more about the potential for nuclear power in Australia at Zero Carbon Options

Special thank you to my friends Scott and Jaz for exploring this issue with me over the last little while, and to my wife Gemma of Inkling Women who’s amazing work brings me such incredibly valuable perspective and insight on gender issues.