This is rather a technical one.let alone geography,but considering all,this is something only Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun in Melbourne,can answer?.

I agree on a couple of things; that we have to have an emissions penalty or quota system and that the winning technologies will reveal themselves in due course. I think that wind, solar and biofuel will fill a useful niche but conspicuously fail to plug the gap based on current consumption. Countries like Denmark and Germany that trumpet their commitment to renewables may soon have to reconsider the nuclear option. This is because much of their energy gap is filled by unreliable and dwindling gas supplies, to which nuclear savvy countries like France are less vulnerable. By the year 2010 several things will have happened: in Australia we will be wincing at other countries doing well on our uranium, more Cat 5 cyclones and droughts will seem to correlate with profligate coal burning, and we will wonder whatever became of hydrogen cars and clean coal. By then I think the public will decide nuclear is not so bad. However it may be another decade before the first of many nuclear power plants is up and running.

The recent promotion of nuclear energy is not about energy at all - it is about profit. It is about stockmarket movements.

Nuclear power is unviable, both economically and in terms of nett energy production after decommisioning. (even without a Chernobyl/3MIle Island scenario). That is why it was scaled right down in the 80's - not because of protests but because it simply made an economic loss in the long term.

The third world needs energy, the first world need more energy and the general public is scared by climate change. This is perfect for the global stock market. Yellowcake, which has been stockpiled for decades has been losing it's price as nuclear power has been discredited since the 70's. There have been some very cheap stock to buy, before all the publicity about peak oil and greenhouse emissions. Now all that has changed and yellowcake is a viable economic commodity, even if not a viable energy source..

In the end, the speculators palm off their inflated shares to suckers, (e.g. Enron or Telstra) or the corporations make the third world suckers by committing them to power station contracts they won't be able to afford in the long term. Either way, once the profit has been made the speculator washes their hands of the ecological and economic consequences, (e.g. union carbide in Bhopal) leaving us all - but particularly the third world - carrying the can and looking for solutions - and paying for them.

It is astounding that the nuclear lobby can get the WWF to support nuclear power. . If things are so desparate to consider nuclear, I wonder what are the obstacles to wind farms?. I bet a lot of Ukranian Parrots died of radiation poisoning after Cernobyl. It would be interesting to see the effect of fossil fuel power stations in Australia on Parrot health too.

Interesting to hear that some people think nuclear energy is not economically viable. I suppose that might come as a surprise to the French who I gather get around 80% of their electricity from nuclear reactors, and I think all their fuel is imported (much from us). While nuclear energy is not 'safe' neither is fossil fuel. Air pollution largely contributed to by fossil fuel burning kills many people each year particularly in heavily populated cold-climate countries. Coal mining accidents kill as many each year in China alone as are predicted to ultimately die from the world's only serious nuclear accident, Chernobyl. Wind and solar power will never be able to provide energy other than at the fringes. Hydro has its resource limits and environmental consequences. Australia has huge uranium deposits, seems just a matter of time before it is used at home.

Recently I heard of experiments into obtaining nuclear energy from an element other than from uranium. I forget the name of the little-known element that is mentioned, but apprently Australia has the world's largest deposits of it. It is apparently much safer than uranium and produces less waste, but things are only in the experimental stage (overseas, not here - sound familiar?)

To stop wind generator construction to save the orange bellied parrot seems strange. Wouldn’t areas with wind turbines be safer for parrots?. There would be no residential development around them and the cat and dog population would not be as great. A little bit of native vegetation may also survive. The blades move slowly on the turbines and I can’t see them as parrot killers.
I have seen the wind turbines against the North sea in Holland, Germany and Denmark and I think they look great. They also keep out residential and high rise development. If you want to find a wild area against the North sea you will one day need to seek out a wind turbine area.

nuclear power is unviable when you include the decommissioning of reactors into the equation. France and other places may well be using nuclear power now but they will pay heavily over time as reactors reach the end of their lives.

construction energy plus decommisioning energy needs to be subtracted from the gross energy output to get an idea of it's real viability. similarly financial costs.

This goes for all energy sources including photo-voltaic cells which don't rate so well on this model either.

The simplicity of a magnetic generator makes wind a much better option.

reducing energy consumption is even better. We have lived for millions of years without electricity but now we cannot conceive of a world cutting down energy use.

the king is correct, the french may get 80% from nuclear power but thats existing, not future generation. there is only one nuclear generator being constructed in europe at the moment and that is being constructed by a consortium of scandanavian companies for their own use+some sale to the grid, and so is protected from the full scruitiny of the energy market. some anylists are suggesting that they are prepared to sustain losses on the construction to prove a point.

the nuke industry in england claims a cost of 3 pounds per kw/h, but the total cost, including construction, decomissioning and waste disposal is apparently closer to 8/ kw/h. putting it above the 7.8/ kw/h of wind (including construction/ decomissioning).

2005 was also the first year in which the global amount of power generated by renewables exceded that produced by nuclear power.

from last weeks new scientist.

PK is thinking of the thorium cycle of which we are likely to hear a lot more, not to mention fusion energy at some later stage.
I am always surprised by these commentators assuming that all environmentalists belong to some organisation such that when the WWF sign on for action against climate change with big business. You don't have to belong to some organisation to be an environmentalist, just capable of rational thought, a dash of logic, some understanding of human nature, acquisitiveness perhaps, and a sense of history to be capable of doing a reality check on climate change. Those who look at the broader parameters of what happens with a pandemic such as bird flu could give us some understanding of what our reactions will be to an energy shortfall. Leaving it to the market to sort out is definitely problematic.

The relative costing of nuclear power and other generating systems is clearly a complex affair. The technical arguments and modelling are matters for experts in a number of diverse disciplines including, accounting, resource economics, expertise in tax and commercial law, engineering and its many sub branches and many more.

Thus the statement that made by Green groups that nuclear power is expensive can only be regarded as being so soft, as to be really mushy. Other and possibly better informed bodies such as the Royal Academy of Engineering, World Nuclear Association consider nuclear to be cost competitive. The MIT on The Future of Nuclear Power considers nuclear should remain on the table and will be especially valuable if a carbon tax is ever introduced.

It is generally agreed that decommissiong costs are included in the costing for nuclear power. I doubt if this is the case for oter modalities.

The real decision in this area will be made by industry, the financial market and Government. It is anybodies guess how reports from the various stake holders will influence decisions. My own view is that the anti-nuclear people have lost the argument. The Greens are in the position of fighting a weak rear guard action against for them hopeless odds.

Note: All reports mentioned can be located on the web.

Thorium sounds like an exciting energy package if it is anything like it is cracked up to be – much more abundant in Australia and much safer than uranium.

However, I must say that everyone is missing the point, including Paul Gilding. As a former executive director of Green peace International, this is most unfortunate.

What am I talking about? Sustainability, which is, or at least should be, the very soul of environmentalism.

What is the essence of sustainability? Making the demand for energy and all manner of other resources not exceed the renewable supply rate, being efficient with those resources that are non-renewable, and doing it all in such manner that we do not further damage our environment, but rather allow a great deal of damage to be repaired.

What are the main factors? Stabilisation of population. Much-improved efficiency in resource usage. Weaning ourselves quickly off of fossil fuels and onto renewable energy sources.

When are Greenpeace or people like Paul Gilding going to get on the rooftop and yell that the essence of environmentalism is stabilising population, and matching demand to a sustainable supply rate for all manner of stuff? Why do we never hear this from these ‘pseudogreenies’?

We shouldn’t even be talking about nuclear energy. In Australia we should be talking about reducing immigration to at least net zero, developing biofuel industries and all sorts of improved-efficiency measure, and getting the bloody hell off the absurd continuous growth spiral, of population growth being encouraged in order to generate economic growth and economic growth being needed to provide the same standard of living for an ever-larger population, without there being any advantage for the average person, but big profits for a few already rich and powerful people.

If we were to implement a nuclear energy regime, with the same old growth paradigm that we have now, we would just be facilitating continuous population growth, a faster depletion of resources and more environmental damage, and it would lead to the need for more and more nuclear power stations.

How can anyone suggest that wind power has any place in our power supply.
In these discussions, I do not hear the cost of the required conventional power station, sitting idle, in back up, for when the wind drops, as part of wind power costs.
I get so sick of all this rubbish.

I haven't heard anyone speak about tidal flow power generation. Areas in the north of Australia have tidal variations of four meters which could be used to create electricity. Even areas near Sydney like the Entrance, Lake Macquarie at Swansee and Brisbane waters at the rip near Woy Woy, Hawkesbury river at Brooklyn etc have huge flows of water in and out each day. Since I live in Sydney these are familiar to myself. However around our coast are many opportunities for tidal power generation. Perhaps many would not like to place obstructions across natural water flows, but if the paddles were large and wide enough it would not restrict water flows. Opening side corrodors could be built for shipping and boating passage.

It might be interesting in this age to look at this argument in terms of 'rationalism'. A fusion generator preceded our planet. In fact, it is responsible for all life on this planet. Currently, we utilise less than 4% of all energy sent from that generator to this planet.
As good economic rationalists, should we not maximise our efficiency in exploiting existing resources, before moving on to new sources?

Philo,

The highest variation in tides in Australia is about 10.3m, in the Derby area, NW Australia:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/scribblygum/kingtide/default.htm

Tidal power is the dark horse in the race. Although there thousands of kilometres of Australia's southern coastline that are almost constantly exposed to reasonably strong wind, and therefore suitable for wind power generation, there is the huge expense of instructure to transport the power. And of course many people consider it to be an eyesore. Tidal power turbines can be placed near human settlement much more easily. Also tides and currents are more predictable and realiable.

A growing number of great tidal power turbine systems are being developed, but it is not something that people are used to, unlike wind power which has been used for thousands of years, starting with grinding grain for example. And of course the machine age has been built on coal power systems, still very much the staple, and still with a very powerful influence on our political systems. Also it is more difficult to construct lasting structures in marine environments, but a lot of progress has been made with corrosion resistant and strong building materials/alloys/coatings, etc.

Long after nuclear fission has run it's course, uranium reserves depleted, and when our grandkids' grandkids are still cursing the present generation's decision to leave them with impossible-to-store-for-a-long-time radioactive waste, technologies that utilise the power of the sea will be widespread.

Here are some excellent examples:

Marine Current Turbines Ltd.
http://www.marineturbines.com/technical.htm

Blue Energy Canada Inc.
http://www.bluenergy.com/index.html

Hammerfest Electricity (Norway)
http://www.e-tidevannsenergi.com/

I wish anyone who wishes to develop or invest in these technologies the most sincere best wishes.

'I wish anyone who wishes to develop or invest in these technologies the most sincere best wishes.' - this shocking sentence was the result of fatigue, as were the other couple of spelling errors in the post above! Apologies..

I've found another excellent example of marine turbine design, in addition to the ones listed in the above post:

Turbines by Tidal Stream, UK
http://www.teleos.co.uk/Turbines.htm

Tidal power is interesting. Does there exist somewhere in the world a tidal generator with a significant output? Given that most demand is in cities where coastal land is at a premium, where could they be constructed? How are visual pollution, environmental degradation and the threat of storm damage dealt with? Perhaps this is a power source of last resort.

I notice that the critics of nuclear power talk about its long term legacy, and that is certainly a major problem. What about the long-term legacy of fossil fuel. Some scientists say that even if fossil fuel burning was ceased abruptly, the damage already done would take decades to reverse.

Excellent posts Ludwig & Ev.

I find the whole proposal of nuclear energy as an 'alternative' totally ironic given that it is yet another NON renewable resource.

Our efforts must be focused on both discovering and developing true alternatives.

Paul.
If the federal government has come to the conclusion that global warming (heating) is real then I missed any evidence of this in the recent budget.
Where are any tax incentives provided to use less power?
Where there any provisions for a pollution tax?
Where are the tax incentives to encourage the R&D in the renewable energy sector?

Paul

This is my huge gripe with Costalotello latest budget. It’s just more of the same, when it can’t be more bleedingly obvious that large-scale changes are needed.

Most urgently, we need huge measures to ease the pain of conversion from the fossil fuel era onto renewable energy sources. This would go a very long way towards addressing climate change issues. A few extra measures would be needed to fully address sustainability, and then we would well and truly be on the right track.

But no. We’ll continue to prop up the current system, including high population and economic growth, until it just collapses. Then maybe people will start realising just how incredibly irresponsible Costello and Howard have been.

Beazley is barely any better, although he did have something to say about something vaguely related to something to do with peak oil or greenhouse or something!

No, the liblabs are a dead loss. They are just going to continue taking us down the road to ruin.

I desperately hope that peak oil will cause a backflip in one or both of these politicodinosaurs and make them see the great error of their ways. But it won’t come easily.

Afterall I would have thought that after a few years they would be seriously questioning the merits of continuous high population growth in centres that have very serious water-supply issues. But noooooo, its just maximum growth as though there is not an issue at all with one of the most fundamental resources. Crazy stuff.

They’ll do anything to keep the growth (and the antisustainability momentum) happening, and this will no doubt mean supporting nuclear power more strongly as we become more resource-stressed.

The latest budget was a complete disappointment to me as well. Nothing, nothing to enhance rail - thus reducing trucking. Nothing towards sustainable energy. Nothing towards public transport - reducing need for cars.

What did Beazley have to say - nothing as well. Another opportunity lost.

We will be forced on nuclear power as a last ditch option when we could've have set up viable and sustainable industries with such a huge budget.

And what is Costello on about increasing family size while we run out of resources? Madness.

“And what is Costello on about increasing family size while we run out of resources? Madness.”

Absolutely! In fact, it is the nearest thing to pure lunacy that I have struck in Australian politics.

Even full-on support for a nuclear industry couldn’t be more profoundly stupid.

As a fuel scientist, I wonder how you can maintain nuclear power is unsustainable. The uranium is going to undergo fission whether it is dilute and buried in a mine or concentrated and sitting in a power plant, where there will be a critical mass of its kinfolk to do some useful work. The amount of fossil energy used to build the plant is trivial and probably about the same to build a coal- or natural gas-based electricity plant, but the comparison stops there. Once commissioned, the plant consumes no fossil fuel nor does it contribute to the anthropomorphic inventory of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So long as a coal-based plant runs, it helps to open the Canadian Northwest Passage and destroy habitat for polar bears. Oh yes, and displace 30 million souls in the Ganges delta, along with Manhattan Island, Galveston the Gold Coast etc.

Hells bells billwells, what an extremely selective focus!

As a fuel scientist you would know all about the arguments against nuclear energy, including the enormous consequences of Chernobyl-type accident, the insidious nature of the waste product, the risk of sabotage, earthquakes, targeting by hostile forces, etc.

What about the fact that overall economics, taking into account decommissioning, are well and truly on the negative side?

And who is saying that nuclear energy will replace coal? It won’t. It will just add to it. Coal will continue to be burnt for as long as it is a ‘good’ economic choice.

So why do you give us such a one-sided perspective?

Anyway, welcome to OLO. Straight into the thick of it eh!

billwells,
Good on you! Get stuck into these illinformed leftwing greens, who want to take us back to the beginning of time when they believe the Earth was pristine and no man inhabited this planet.

O dear. Check out the comparison between Philo’s last two posts.

In one he prattles on about “illinformed leftwing greens, who want to take us back to the beginning of time when they believe the Earth was pristine and no man inhabited this planet.”

What ??

In the other, he makes a not entirely unreasonable suggestion that tidal power could play a part in meeting out energy needs, presumably as part of an alternative package to nuclear power.

This seems like a pretty full-on leftwing greenie subject to raise to me.

What a bizarre contradiction !! !!

Billwells
I do wish we had some protection against specialists in the world.
I wish we could have some "geophysiologists" who would be the equivalent of the old GPs, but would have a broad understanding of the physiology of the planet.
It is necessary to realise that humans are only one of the life forms on this planet. We know what happens when there is a population explosion in other life forms and yet we keep thinking that the same result will not apply to humans.
Using up the natural resources of the planet and hoping for new technology to save us is not a very sensible way of looking at things.

I for one most strongly welcome the renaissance of nuclear energy. Yes Australia should mine uranium and sell it to India, China and eventually Indonesia. Yes, again to an international nuclear repository in Australia. The safety record of nuclear power is exemplary and the safety methods and transport of nuclear material have been explained again and again. For instance read the IAEA Safety Series, or the UIC Briefing papers.

It should be clear by now that the Chernobyl accident was a one off situation, due to the design and operation of the RMKB reactor. Again and again it has been explained that these faults have been corrected. On any objective scale of industrial accidents, Chernobyl comes in about the middle of the list. I mention just a few examples here: Bhopal, India, methyl isocyanate release, 15000 deaths, 150,000 to 600,000 injured; Machu II, India 1979, hydro-electric dam failure 2500 deaths; Durunkha, Egypt,1994, fuel depot hit by lightning, 580 deaths, Warri, Nigeria 1998, oil pipeline leak and fire, 500+deaths and many more .

The problem of psychological and social disability in the Chernobyl population was due in part to the poor management practices in the old USSR. There is no doubt in mind that the deliberate alarmist and misinformation circulated by the anti-nuclear warriors has augmented the sense of anxiety reported in this population

This article is incorrect and misleading and has no credibility. The author does not even know the difference betweens the Greens and a former "Green-Peace" member. One is a political party and a movement for Government, the other is an environmental action group.
The myth that there is an abundance of nuclear energy is incorrect. It is probable that we will run out of high grade nuclear energy within this decade, worldwide. Low grade nuclear power produces just as much greenhouse gasses as fossil fuel does, and you also have the problems of radio-active waste, health problems, security problems, and the expense of storage to the end of time as we know it.
The other incorrect statement is that nuclear energy is the cheaper option. Some European countries including France and Sweden heavily subsidise nuclear power at tax payers expenense. This is just to keep it relatively safe, containable, secure from terrorism. Denmark has the cheaper and therefore has the better option that produces no greenhouse gasses or radioactivity: they use windmill power, and this does not require ongoing hefty subsidies from taxpayers.
Economic rationists argue for nuclear power because they believe, or want us to believe, that this is the cheapest way, and argue that it is cleaner for greenhouse gass management. They forget to put into the mix all the expenses, government subsidies, and risk to health, environment and security. When we have to move from high grade uranium: due to run out within years, to low grade uranium, we have a dirty, expensive, dangerous and unhealthy situation. Not to mention the risk of terrorism.
Uranium power is the most expensive option and no Green, to my knowledge, in Australia, have, do, or will ever support this lie.

You appear to have all accepted the environmentalists' line that increasing levels of carbon dioxide are heating the planet and disturbing the world's climate in unpredictable but negative ways. Apart from the fact that there is no genuinely scientific evidence to support it, you should be aware of the following:

1. The scientific consensus rates water vapour as at least as important a greenhouse gas as CO2. Dr Vincent Gray (an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]) has calculated that water vapour accounts for as much as 92% of the greenhouse effect.

2. Many of the main assumptions underlying the IPCC mathematical models are simply invalid. Carbon dioxide has been growing at nothing like the one per cent per annum postulated by the IPCC, and methane is actually reducing. Some models assume that Rwanda and Mali will be more prosperous than the USA and that coal production will increase eleven fold by the year 2100. Both of those assumptions are truly wild.

3. The IPCC predictions have not been amended in the light of actual data and those models have not yet been successfully run backwards.

4. The summaries of IPCC reports are politically inspired, and are not supported by the reports themselves.

LKG