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 > A nuclear powered world > Comments

A nuclear powered world : Comments

By Peter Gellatly, published 28/9/2007

Without early, broadscale adoption of nuclear power, unremitting world energy demand will make a mockery of greenhouse amelioration.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All
The 15,200 megawatts of wind turbines installed worldwide last year will generate enough clean electricity annually to offset the carbon dioxide emissions of 23 average-sized U.S. coal-fired power plants, according to a new Vital Signs Update from the Worldwatch Institute.

The 43 million tons of carbon dioxide displaced in 2006 is equivalent to the emissions of 7,200 megawatts of coal-fired power plants, or nearly 8 million passenger cars.

The global market for wind equipment has risen 74 percent in the past two years, leading to long backorders for wind turbine equipment in much of the world.

Mr Gellatly is entitled to sprinkle pixie dust on the proposed Generation III/III reactors to "bridge the gap", however, on the domestic front, didn't Ziggy advise that a nuclear reactor would not be available in Australia for some 15 years. Is that one reactor in 15 years or the 25 he is recommending which he claims is necessary to make any dent in our CO2 emissions?

In the meantime, scores of uranium mines will proceed with the green light, creating a prognosis for a more radioactive planet and desecrating many thousands of square kilometres for mining operations.

Ignoring the excessive emissions to air, from other industries will also be to our detriment. I refer to Australia's motor vehicles which last year, emitted some 2,200,000,000 kgs of CO (When will that hydrogen be available Mr Gellatly?)

The metal ore industry released to the atmosphere some 250,000,000 kgs of SO2 etc and the Iron and Steel industry a "mere" 570,000,000 kgs of CO.

Australian regulators continue to approve new coal fired plants.

These alarming figures are a result of the federal and state governments' silence and refusal to enforce pollution control technology on these significantly unregulated industries.

Mr Gellatly has failed to advise that thorium, extracted from monazite and thorite is as dangerous to mine as any other radioactive ore and many miners are already being used as cannon fodder in these mining operations.

The nuclear figures just don't add up, time has run out and my "wooden" leg tells me that we are being duped!
Posted by dickie, Friday, 28 September 2007 8:59:21 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
Anti-green

There are 8 wind farms in Western Australia (including Esperance) and to my knowledge, not one bird death from blade injury has been reported since the first commissioning in 2001. Nor do I know of any complaints from residents.

What has been reported, worldwide, is the death of 5,000 beautiful native birds which died from lead poisoning in Esperance - a result of the incompetent and irresponsible regulator and the mining company!

Oh boy.......do we really believe we can trust these environmental vandals to regulate the operations of a nuclear reactor?
Posted by dickie, Friday, 28 September 2007 9:36:40 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 publication of the BHP Billiton Annual Report 2007 shows that the Olympic Dam project is highly unlikely to go ahead and the company has been careful to state that a positive decision depends on the outcome of the feasibility study due to end in 2009. It turns out that the gold in the combined ore is a mere 0.3 grams/tonne and the triuranium octoxide only of a grade of 0.029% and that neither would be viable without the copper co-product. The current underground mine is failing and the company is having to buy yellow cake at an exorbitant price to satisfy its forward supply contracts let at the previous low price. It shows that arrangements to supply uranium made with China, India and now Russia were somewhat premature and will be very embarrasing for the Australian government if the board of BHP Billiton take a negative view.

As for Generation IV Roadmap, I have recently reviewed the programme for Sanders Research Associates on

http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1321&Itemid=103

The article is called "Cursed to the third and fourth generation?"!
Posted by John Busby, Friday, 28 September 2007 11:45:59 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
Thanks for the link, John Busby. It puts the cold, clear light of reality on the superficial gloss being peddled by nuclear power enthusiasts.
Posted by colinsett, Saturday, 29 September 2007 7:31:56 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 have heard a lot said about the base load Myth or furphy and while I am a very strong proponent of renewable energy supply the following has to be considered:

The concept of base and swing loads was not invented to frustrate environmentalists, it is simply a term used over many decades by those who generate and distribute power to match supply and demand. As such it can no more be dispelled or refuted than the term gravity.

Base load demand is typically the constant demand that the grid experiences over the 24hrs which changes slowly and which can be met with base load generation which is presently the large coal, gas and neuclear generators that generate very efficiently but can take up to 12 hrs to ramp up or down supply.

Peak load or demand is a spike in the demand that the base load cannot cope with, and occurs typically in the morning and highest at 6-8pm at night. This is met typically with smaller gas or hydro turbines that come on load quickly.

Due to their poorer efficiency and high capital cost (per kW generated) the cost of peak power generated is between 5-40 times the cost of base generation.

Spreading and diversifying the renewable supplies will reduce the swings in supply but will not compensate entirely. A study by the CSIRO indicated that an optimum spread of solar, wind, and geothermal generation with 120% of present peak demand would meet 70% of electricity consumption, but would still need 90% of coal or gas generation capacity to make up for variations in load supply.

This would mean that while less CO2 was generated, the renewable generators could not replace existing generators cost of running. Until the renewable technologies can meet demand, the neuclear debate will continue.
Posted by Democritus, Saturday, 29 September 2007 7:32:51 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
Shadow Minister says that:

"A windless evening at 7 o'clock when everone is cooking (peak load) is still going to need generation that present green technologies can never meet."

If you recall the weather map you may have seen on TV last night, you have evidence that it's not windless everywhere at once. If you remember about time zones, you realise it isn't evening everywhere at once.

Our current electricity grid is able to provide electricity across a range of weather patterns and time zones, so that peak loads can be met by generation outside of peak load zones.

In addition, there is a range of smart technology, marketing and use-monitoring strategies which can be applied to peak loading issues.

Nuclear electricity is a proliferation threat, a terrorist-attack risk, and has been repeatedly argued as uneconomic except when provided substantial government subsidies.

As for the greenhous savings arguments, the greenhouse gas contribution of nuclear electricity has not been independently evaluated. The most optomisitc evaluations, which purportedly equate it with wind generation, in terms of greenhouse gas emission, are the work of industry advocates.

For example, Sturm van Leeuwen states in "Secure Energy?":
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/secureenergy.pdf

"The claim of the nuclear industry that nuclear power emits low levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is not based on scientifically verifiable evidence."

"Emissions of greenhouse gases other than CO2, often with Global Warming Potentials many thousands of times larger than carbon dioxide, by nuclear power never have been investigated and/or published."

"Absence of data definitely does not mean absence of greenhouse gas emissions."

The link is well worth the attention of anyone who wishes a rounded view of nuclear electricity.

Shadow Minister, which would you rather have in your back yard - windmills or a nuclear reactor? I prefer windmills, because they involve no radioactivity whatever.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Saturday, 29 September 2007 8:10:55 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All

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