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 > Climate change causes backflips > Comments

Climate change causes backflips : Comments

By Paul Gilding, published 8/5/2006

No wonder more Greens are supporting nuclear power.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
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.
Posted by its not easy being, Monday, 8 May 2006 4:40:04 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
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.
Posted by jup, Monday, 8 May 2006 6:26:05 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 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.
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 8 May 2006 6:43:15 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
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.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 8 May 2006 7:39:29 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
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.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 8 May 2006 8:33:59 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 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.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 8 May 2006 9:41:33 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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