The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Is nuclear the solution to climate change? > Comments

Is nuclear the solution to climate change? : Comments

By Scott Ludlam, published 29/3/2010

Nuclear power would at best be a distraction and a delay on the path to a sustainable future.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 25
  10. 26
  11. 27
  12. All
If you're not in favour of Nuclear for Climate change perhaps it can be used to control population expansion of the world.
When the dirt hits the fan, anything might happen. All pigs are equal but some pigs will want to be more equal than others.
Posted by Sherkahn, Monday, 29 March 2010 12:04:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No way, because nuclear will only prolong the problem, which is the greediness of man.

The same future fear said by philosophers way back during the industrial revolution, when they said that as man lets engines take over from what was only done by human hand, the natural greed of man will eventually clear away the vegetation that nature naturally gifts to man in order to preserve the world for man.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 29 March 2010 12:10:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see that this business about renewable energy being of any use has already been comprehensively kicked around, but just to add my piece to it I looked at renewables in some detail recently and was unable to find a scrap of evidence from utilities actually using the stuff that it reduces emissions. There may be theoretical studies such as the McKinsey report (which I wasn't able to access from the link) saying that some reduction is possible at a less than exorbitant cost, but perhaps a more telling study was issued by Rheinisch-Westfalisches Institut fur Wirtschaftsforschung (a leading economic research institute based in the German city of Essen) in October 2009. About 6.3 per cent of total German power consumption is supplied by wind, with the institute calculating that each tonne of carbon saved in this way costs several times that of the going rate on the European ETS. Its gets worse. Further into the report it is apparent that the institute economists simply assumed that wind energy displaces an equivalent amount of gas and coal generation. No allowance was made for higher reserve requirements (spinning generators kept off grid), or of the cost and loss of efficiency from retailoring the network to accommodate wind. Those adjustements could easily quadruple the cost per carbon tonne, if there is any saving at all!
The reports from Denmark are even worse, with the Danes saved from their extensive use of wind energy only by the fact that they can easily export off peak wind energy to Norway and Sweden (which have lots of hydro), only to have to reimport it in peak periods.
Don't just walk away from wind energy - run
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 29 March 2010 1:02:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon .. try this one .. I found it on the previous link, now that's gone (odd) but it's still here .. I have a .pdf if you can't find it. http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/australia_newzealand/knowledge/pdf/1802_carbon.pdf
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 29 March 2010 1:32:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The data coming out of Europe should make it clear that wind and solar cannot replace coal or nuclear required for a modern mixed economy. Australia has plenty of gas for now which could be used for expensive baseload electricity or to back up lulls in an expensive and token build-out of wind and solar. However we want that gas for many other uses and it will never achieve the 80% CO2 cuts needed long run.

Whether thorium or integral fast reactors arrive soon Australia should build several current Generation III reactors, perhaps using the cooling systems to get cheaper desalination. We could store the waste in a secure outback site for when high burnup reactors arrive, perhaps even taking back some exported material. As a leading supplier of raw uranium Australia can greatly influence international flows of nuclear materials. As India is finding out they do do themselves no favours by being blacklisted by Australia. Perhaps not a lot can be done about those countries that already have nuclear weapons except to ensure new countries don't get involved. With a couple of exceptions those countries must recognise peaceful nuclear helps their own people foremost.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 29 March 2010 1:40:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is nuclear the solution to climate change?

Is the pope a catholic? Are ducks water proof?

Considering that the nuclear issue has a strong emotional component, and most people has strong opinions, the debate in Melbourne fundementally changed the opinions of 25% of the nuclear opponents, in an hour.

The only technically competent advocate of renewable power using an optimistic interpretation of the data has a solution to reduce the green house emmissions to acceptable levels by 2050. The only problem is that it would cost many times more than the nuclear power stations it would supposedly replace, to build and maintain.

Scott Ludlam's (a graphics designer) site and those of other green are noticeably deficient in details, and resorts to some outright lies currently circulating the anti nuke debate:

From his website Dec 2009
"“Among the many reasons why nuclear power is not viable are:
• the fact that the world’s nuclear power fleet is shrinking not growing, primarily due to cost;
• the shunning of nuclear power projects by insurance companies and investors;
• the technology’s inability to help us address climate change, especially in the necessary timeframe;"

Given the rapid expansions in the nuclear fleets, and France being the only modern country to reduce CO2 emmission whilst tripling its power consumption at one of the lowest costs in Europe, (all this being well known last year) would indicate that Scott is being economical with the truth.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 29 March 2010 1:50:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 25
  10. 26
  11. 27
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy