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 > Dogma and delusion over renewables > Comments

Dogma and delusion over renewables : Comments

By Haydon Manning, published 18/6/2007

Many anti-nuclear environmentalists overlook the fact that much has changed since the 1970s.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. 15
  10. All
As climate woes and electricity prices rise I think the public will think that nuclear may not be not so evil after all. Nuclear opponents display a touch of inconsistency since hot granite geothermal is indirect nuclear energy and proposed giant batteries for intermittent sources may be capable of exploding. I haven't read Deisendorf's book but I believe he proposes increased use of natural gas for baseload power. In my opinion gas should be conserved for peak power, for making fertiliser and as a portable fuel when compressed in cylinders.

The reality in Australia is that hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal will be burned before any suitable replacement technology can built, nuclear or otherwise. Some green utopians might want to reflect on this as they continue their frequent flier lifestyles.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 18 June 2007 11:25:09 AM
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
Haydon

But what about the additional argument against developing nuclear power in Australia?: that is nuclear power is often a step towards developing nuclear weapons due to the dual use nature of nuclear technology and processes.

The Federal Government can use an enrichment plant to enrich uranium to reactor grade level. The Government can then further enrich some or all of this uranium to weapons grade.

Is this a risk OR (I would) argue a BENEFIT?

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 18 June 2007 11:27:51 AM
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 notice that little is mentioned here about weapons proliferation and nuclear power. One might want to argue that the domestic reactor debate is not proliferation relevant. But if we are to be moral agents rather than economic automatons then it is relevant in the following way. The Australian nuclear debate should be seen in the context of the global push for nuclear energy. The IPCC in its latest report did include a provision for nuclear power, at the insistence of the US (and undoubtedly also Australia); in other words the push for nuclear came from the leading climate sceptical state, although the IPCC has demanded a study on proliferation consequences. If objective what this study will find is that the global expansion of the nuclear power industry will lead to a great increase in the risk of further nuclear weapons proliferation in an increasingly unstable world. For this reason we should oppose this global expansion and, being moral agents, that means doing our bit to oppose the push for nuclear in Australia…think global, act local
Posted by Markob, Monday, 18 June 2007 12:09:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“But, in the end, with demand for electricity likely to double in Australia by mid century…”

Yet again we witness another supposed environmentalist who supposedly believes in sustainability just blithely accepting continued rapid growth in demand (for energy and just about all other resources)!!

And yet again ol’ broken-record Ludwig says; how can you possibly be genuine about sustainability, or be a true environmentalist, if you don’t see the urgent need to address this growth factor at the same time as we are addressing the ‘technofix’ factors??!!

People who address only the technical-improvements side of the equation are effectively facilitating a much larger population…and thus are effectively taking us FURTHER AWAY from sustainability!!

The president of ACF, Professor Ian Lowe, is also a patron of Sustainable Population Australia. It seems that Prof Lowe has got a much better handle on sustainability issues than Haydon Manning.

As for the merits of nuclear power, I don’t really have a strong view either way. But one thing is for sure; if it just going to prop up the continuous growth paradigm, then I’m dead against it.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 18 June 2007 12:10:50 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
Quality uranium has already peaked. It takes 30 years to get a nuclear power station to efficiency.By the time a new power station runs the resource is long past in Australia. Nuclear power stations need more electricity to 'fire up' over its life time and so creates more carbon emissions than it may save. Nuclear is in no way clean energy. Economically tax payers will have to foot the bill for what is a financial black hole, electricity prices are much higher, unless heavily subsidised by tax payers, maintenance costs and waste disposal is staggering.If Australia wishes to go 'nuclear ' it is economically in effect gambling that it will never recieve another recession. Land prices also collapse around nuclear power stations, which translate into ghetto's of the poorest will live nearby.

Nuclear powerstations have short lives, we would basically be borrowing off of our children. A nuclear power station will not benifit anybody beyond 40 years but the costs will be around for thousands of years. Even so nuclear power stations cannot supply an efficient amount of electricity and would always be of only fringe use.

Through atomic testing and nuclear station leaks the earth is already far past natural background radiation levels, a few disasters can tip the earth over the edge causing a far more horrific outcome than global warming.

If a power station were built west of the East Coast and a leak occured prevailing westerlies would contaminate the a huge arc of the continent west effecting all the eastern capital cities.Bushfires, cyclones and floods would pale as disasters. Australia has not got the resources to cope with a nuclear disaster. Our health system would not even be able to cope with the normal rates of cancer that occur in populations that live nearby.

Nobody to date has ever given a good reason why nuclear should be used.
The only benefits are a lazy government can spin nuclear as some sort of panacea to carbon emissions and the companies that run the station profit off of welfare at the nations expense.
Posted by West, Monday, 18 June 2007 12:11:52 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
Markob in a way introduces a point. Where is the pressure to nuclear coming from? Nuclear energy is the most expensive and inefficient energy known to us. If our economic competitors already use nuclear we have a price advantage over them as our energy costs are lower. New Zealand is already positioning itself towards economic supremecy of the region by dominating their energy generation with renewable clean energy. Australia unfortunately appears to be going the other way , like an old hay seed in the middle of a motorised freeway flogging dead horses to pull its wagon.
Posted by West, Monday, 18 June 2007 12:22:49 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. 15
  10. All

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