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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. 27
  10. All
When I see unfounded data, I'm inclined to skepticism.

"A poll before the debate found an 8 per cent margin in favour of nuclear power. A further poll taken immediately after .... 34 per cent in favour, 58 per cent against.

How many people were polled before and after?

Were they the same people? You imply people changed their minds, you may just have chosen the people in "colorful" clothes after the event, and conservative dress before the event .. if I wanted a given result, I'd plan to get it - which is what I suspect you all did.

What were the questions? How many questions were there?

"This 32 per cent turn-around was all the more surprising given that the pro-nuclear debating team included heavy-hitters" I see you have a belief that "heavy hitters" tend to be believable? That explains all the celebrity types the eco groups pander to, Al Gore, CateB, various Hollywood types.

"a 2008 report by McKinsey, a firm specialising in global greenhouse policy analysis" can we get a link to that report and who funded it?

Same old scare tactics, nuclear war. How many nuclear wars have there been since WWII ended? How many times have nuclear weapons been used? Twice, to END A WAR!

More eco spin and scaremongering dressed up as "reasonable", you guys make the craft of spin into an art form.

Billions is being poured into sustainable energy uses and yet no breakthroughs, no new energy sources and the big ones, Wind and Solar, have little or no impact, and have to be backed up by nuclear or coal anyway.

So let's go nuclear now while the eco types continue to fiddle at the edges trying to convince everyone to use less of everything, progress not primitive.

The next generation want to be live in a modern world, not go back to the stoneage - try taking a cell phone of Facebook off the "generation of over entitlement", see how you go.

Tell them your plan is to cut back not increase supply of energy, go on .. tell them.
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 29 March 2010 8:50:37 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
It is unfortunate that the Greens, who are the only political party of any significance at the moment with some credibility on environmental problems,are stuck in the anti nuclear groove.

Nuclear is by far the least polluting of all sources of base load electrical generation.The technology is presently available and is improving rapidly.Cost is certainly comparable with all renewable options and is far better than coal or gas when the true costs of fossil fuel generation are taken into account.

Geothermal is worth the expenditure of more resouces however the technolgy of hot rock generation has some way to go before it is viable.As geothermal resources are remote from the areas of high power demand there will need to be considerable expenditure on HVDC and HVAC transmission lines.

Solar PV and Solar thermal are very valuable on the local scale and are worth persuing.Wind generation is practical in some areas but all these technologies are not capable of base load generation.

The proliferation argument is just more of the same old,same old.Whatever is done in the nuclear power generation field nuclear weapons will proliferate and get into the wrong hands.It is a military and security issue,not an energy issue.

The issue of nuclear waste will be virtually solved by generation 4 reactors which will use the waste currently produced for fuel.

If the Greens are to be part of the solution to our problems,not like Labor and the Liberals who are part of the problem,then they need to start thinking outside the anti nuclear box.
Posted by Manorina, Monday, 29 March 2010 9:26:51 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
Amicus - you'll find the link to McKinsey in my post
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/cut-emissions-and-boost-economy/

The nuclear argument is a huge distraction from the things we can do right now to dramatically cut our greenhouse emissions for little cost and modest changes in our way of life. The main thing we can do right now is to stop being so wasteful in our energy use. Efficiency is the first priority, not an argument about which source of energy we might use in a few decades' time.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Monday, 29 March 2010 9:34:44 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
Thanks Geoff, the report is here "http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/Australian_Cost_Curve_for_GHG_Reduction.pdf" it does not support what the author of this article says by the way .. "we could reduce Australia's greenhouse emissions by 35 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030 at no net cost"

There is a cost, and that depends on a whole raft of factors and total buy in by everyone .. so not as simple as the author makes out, is it?

Tricky marketing words from tricky marketing people, my skepticism is, as ever, well founded.

I'd still like to know who funded the report, found in the Client Services area of the McKinsey website, one would imagine it was not done pro bono.

The report also draws on many eco organizations for information, what a surprise .. a bit like the IPCC isn't it.

However the report favors Nuclear Power but decries the long term issues, as expected, but that's ignored by the author and not mentioned at all as an alternative.

Mind you it's articles like this that just push the barriers further forward and make these organizations and their hysterical bleatings less and less believable.

Scott, did the Greens commission this report?
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 29 March 2010 10:01:20 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
Geoff Davies is right. Unfortunately I cannot quote a reference for this (sorry Amicus) but all of the anecdotal evidence I look at says we can knock about 30% off our stationary energy demand. 10% can be achieved quite often by walk throughs, talking to building managers. A business I was involved in in the early nineties achieved over 40% for a tourist resort by changing some circuitry. No one had noticed the problem.

It can be done.
Posted by renew, Monday, 29 March 2010 10:23:55 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
Is nuclear the solution to climate change? Ask a silly a question....

The author wants to ignore the collapsing science or rather manipulated data and non-peer reviewed propaganda behind the climate change fraud even as it unravels on a daily basis. This energy discussion article is therefore based on a false premise.

Al least Dr James Hansen has publicly expressed concerns about what his colleague Prof. Phil Jones is currently going through. It's called 'climategate' for those who haven't caught up.

Once all the hoaxers, the fraudsters, the gullible and other interest groups think they have established their new pseudo science reality, as evidenced here, they can start to argue amongst themselves as to what the next step forwards or backwards should be.

Having corrupted science to achieve their aims, how can any future scientific debate on energy or anything else be trusted.
Posted by CO2, Monday, 29 March 2010 10:31:33 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. 27
  10. All

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