Today’s presentation at the SAREIC conference was extremely well received. I had tailored the message carefully and included a lot of new material, including something I workshopped with supporters over on the Facebook page. I had many firm congratulations, and like magic an article hit The Advertiser’s web page Adelaide Now.

While a little bit of technical accuracy was confounded in the transition to print, the article is pretty good (I have requested one very important correction), and in particular it was great to see them draw in detail on the decarbonisation action plan I have laid out for South Australia.

I have attached a pptx copy of the presentation here.

Ben Heard_SARIEC 2012_Final

If you need any interpretation of the slides and what I was talking about, please let me know.

I’m very pleased today looks set to raise the profile of Decarbonise SA and the role of nuclear power as a climate change solution. As I suspected, 2012 is proving to be quite a year. Stay posted, I have a couple more great announcements coming up this week!

Any newcomers to the site, don’t forget to subscribe, Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!

Thank you to PayDirt Media for the invitation to today’s conference. Creating positive change feels good!!!


  1. Very interesting presentation. As I didn’t have the full MS Office I also downloaded the free Power Point Viewer. The tables contained some surprises, for example the big Torrens Island plant has lower emissions than the much smaller Playford B. No wonder politicians want gas to be always and forever. Alas it won’t.

    I think the online Advertiser comments may typify the public’s stance. For some reason the noisy minority seem to have greater political clout than the subdued majority.

        1. Fixed, as well as one other pointed out by Rod Adams. I am now considering deleting these comments and pretending it never happened, but that would be just too Orwellian for my tastes.

    1. I happen to like this comment:

      “This is a brighter idea than the silly bl**dy carbon tax!”

      The political implication: By embracing this option to cut emissions, a whole block of objectors to climate action will simply go away, and many will become actively supportive. Environmentalists take note: it is not about fighting, it is about winning.

      1. Which once again proves what the “I Can Change Your Mind About Climate” documentary demonstrated – if you have a solution that works and doesn’t involve a complete restructuring of society, you can get support even from climate change deniers. The only person that was brave enough to mention nuclear power on the panel hosted afterwards was bloody Nick Minchin!

        1. Bingo. Too many Greenies are all talk and no trousers, backing off the minute there is the potential consensus on a meaningful action to slash emissions.

  2. Nice work Ben. You also have made it into the ‘Tiser (2/5) on page 56 in the Business section. Although they have restated the “No deaths” misquote. Maybe a letter to the editor?

      1. AdelaideNow has changed it:
        “We’ve never had a fatality from a radiation incident at a nuclear power plant in the OECD.
        And overwhelming positive comments, although the Thorium option has been latched onto. Good to see plenty of support!

        1. Yup, I got onto the on line editor. Thorium is a funny beast, all of us in the know are fully supportive, but it has much the same package of advantages as IFR, but much further off the pace in development. Never mind, it all opens doors to people learning more about nuclear.

          1. Thorium seems to get a lot of enthusiastic supporters that don’t completely understand what they’re talking about when they make comments in public forums. Comments like ‘doesn’t produce any nuclear waste’ (it does, about the same as an IFR in fact) and ‘doesn’t melt down’ (it’s already melted)

            The key problem with LFTR and other thorium molten salt reactors when it comes to climate change though, is that they won’t be ready in time. We needed to start building BIG new LWRs in major industrialised countries yesterday. We can deal with LWR waste and uranium supply issues later on when we’ve completely developed IFR and LFTR technologies. If we wanted to be more flexible with the initial fuel cycle then we could push for CANDU reactors instead of LWRs, but it still stands that the only COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) reactors that we have at the moment are heavy/light water-moderated, uranium-burning reactors.

  3. Congratulations Ben on another great factual presentation. Keep up the good work, and I look forward to you further educating us all regarding developments in the area’s of alternative solutions in this area. I’m sure the world is your oyster, and one day we’ll look back and thank you for your courage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: