rpg

It seems your head is forever-stuck-in-the-mud. You claim to be an "engineer", most engineers I know look for solutions - I don't see that from you, at all.

You are obviously not a true 'sceptic', otherwise you would have done some fact checking before your latest admonishment of maaate. It seems you just want to poor cold water on (any) viable alternatives that don't meet your demands.

Yes, nuclear must be part of the mix. However, we don't need it here just yet (other countries, most definitely now) - IFR should come on line before we go nuclear, but that too is in its infancy - are you going to scuttle that too?

Re your misguided statement:
"recently $90M was thrown into Tim Flannery's interests in thermal rocks, but the holes collapsed and had to be abandoned, just one example of p*ssing away $."

Geodynamics (quote)
Has assured that the forward work program will position the Joint Venture parties to be able to take the Final Investment Decision (FID) on the Commercial Demonstration Plant (CDP). If all of the objectives and success gates are achieved on schedule, the forward work program will take 18 to 24 months to complete. The Company therefore plans to be in a position to take the FID on the CDP before the end of 2011. The revised Cooper Basin development plan below identifies the main timelines as follows:

• Undertake activities outlined in the work program between now and October 2011;

• Final Investment Decision on the CDP by December 2011;
• Operate the CDP by 2013;

• Final Investment Decision on commercial expansion units (extra CDPs to build up capacity to 500 MW planned output) by June 2014; and

• Operate the 500 MW Commercial Plant by December 2018.
End quote

rpg - you give the impression of wanting to scuttle a any viable alternative energy source (like geothermal) in its infancy - well done engineer, well done rpg the eternal pessimist. Thank God you weren't around when we first started on this road of power generation.

The anti nuke lobby feels that by repeating myths they become true. There are several porkers that I see coming up again and again, usually by the same people.

Myth 1. There is only enough fuel available for a couple of decades at present world consumption. Reality, this was based at $80/kg. As uranium is a fraction of the cost of generation, at $160/kg today's known reserves (allowing for no reprocessing and today's type of reactor) there would be sufficient for at least 200yrs of total generation. Allow reprocessing and more efficient reactors and we are looking at millenium.

Myth 2. They are hideously expensive. Reality, they are still a fraction of the cost of "renewable" power per kWhr to build and run.

Myth 3. They produce waste that lasts on geological scales. Reality, If one reprocesses the waste and store it for 1000 years, it is safe to handle and would only be a tiny quantity.

Myth 4. The French reactors failed in the heat wave in France. Reality, All power stations (coal and gas too) that require water cooling had to shut down when the water temperature used for cooling the steam process rose above the licensed outlet temperature. This licensing issue has been resolved.

Myth 5. Nuclear power is dangerous. Reality, there have been less deaths and injuries per unit of power generated for nuclear than for any other power source (incl chernobyl) which includes the renewables.

Myth 6. The world's nuclear fleet is decreasing. Reality, It will double in the next few decades.

Worlds highest emmitters in t/yr CO2 per capita and GWhr/yr

No1 Australia 20.58 t/yr for 11.2 GWhr/yr
N02 USA 19.78 t/yr for 13.4 GWhr/yr
.
.
France 6.6 t/yr for 7.9 GWhr/yr

So not only is Aus the highest emitter, but also the highest emitter per kWhr.

I also note that the majority of new generation coming on line is coal based or gas not renewable.

qanda, full of bile as usual - once I got through all the baiting and ad hominems, it seems you may have a vested interest, do you have any relationship with Geo Dynamics?

Here you go .. from ASX releases .. "On April 24, shortly after applying for the Fed Govt grant, the high-strength steel inside the Habanero 3 well broke allowing briny “reservoir fluid” and steam to gush to the surface. ASX releases reveal the 4221m-deep well was only 2 months old. It was to supply the pilot plant, now delayed.

Dissolved carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide in the “reservoir fluid” caused the steel to become brittle. Two other wells were also damaged. Fluid and steam continued to flow from the wells for at least 3 weeks before they were plugged with cement.

All three wells are now on hold indefinitely and the pilot plant is delayed by up to 9 months, according to ASX releases. The company is claiming it on insurance."

As an engineer, this concerns me, as a "scientist", you seem to think all is dandy?

November 2009 - Geodynamics gets yet another big grant from the Rudd Government, regardless, this one for $90 million for a demonstration plant. ASX releases.

So I got the two events out of order, and I couldn't find out how much the first site cost us all - but nevertheless, p*ssed away is a reasonable description.

No I don't want to scuttle any viable alternative power source, but I am concerned that is all we do, sink money into any fool idea, and not into reliable known areas, like Nuclear, fission or fusion.

As an engineer a lot of the research and the throw awaylines, like storing hydrogen in garages fills me with fear - supposed scientists who appear to have $ in their sights, fills me with fear, you included, do you have any idea what the risks are, not to getting $, but to people?

So back in your box mate, go bother someone else, we engineers have better things to do than to bother with your sneering.

I'm not sure you really understood the point I was making, Protagoras.

>>Well no it hasn't [have escaped my notice that those four countries represent 40% of the world's population] Pericles nor has it escaped my notice that Australia emits a whopping 19 tonnes of CO2 per capita and the US emits 19.7 tonnes of CO2 per capita.<<

That's the problem with your "Ready, Fire, Aim" approach.

For a start, you missed the obvious point that nuclear energy can actually reduce those horrendous emission numbers you mention, as I pointed out.

But more importantly, you ignore the glaring reality that the two most populous countries in the world have elected to develop a nuclear energy programme, and fail to address the obvious question, "why should this be?"

The question posed at the top of this thread, "Is nuclear the solution to climate change", is badly phrased. Because obviously, any complete solution has to be "fully renewable", such as solar, wind, wave etc., in order to eliminate the use of virtually all non-renewable resource. There will still remain an amount of manufacture and maintenance of course, but this should be manageable.

However, I suggest that there is most certainly a role for nuclear as a stop-gap measure - say, for between fifty and two hundred years - until we get our act fully together.

Pericles, totally agree - if we can use nuclear in the meantime, we can get rid of coal fired plants over time, and until we get true renewable energy sources.

The problem we seem to have is these renewable sources are not coming into existence as fast as everyone thought they would, hence the mad rush and also maddening lack of result.

the reality is here in Australia, we need cola fired plants, as its unlikely we'll get nuclear with the hysterical activists still pushing the same old lines and same old BS.

We have our resident activist you have just addressed who shows there is no room for anything but their opinion, after spending, what, 3 days at a anti uranium rally(?) you'd have to be a fanatic wouldn't you? I don't know why you bother, you'll only get flamed, as I will probably now.

The per capita argument doesn't work anymore since everyone realizes our per capita output for 22M people is trivial compared to the similar output for 300M Americans, 1.2B Chinese, 1.2B Indians etc - it just does not cut it and when people bring it up, it's clearly trying to be clever and tricky, most people now get it that it is spin.

rpg- thanks for the ASX stuff. Being a shareholder of GDY, I get all the reports - they have more detail.

>> As an engineer, this concerns me, as a "scientist", you seem to think all is dandy? << Oh pulease, get off YOUR box!

My 1st undergrad was chemical engineering, my second was science - post doc in science with an engineering bias.

As an engineer, I look for solutions - here's the ad hom, you are tunnel visioned. Stress corrosion cracking, hydrogen embrittlement of the casing - tell me "engineer", do you think we can't overcome that? What "type" of engineer are you again?

Interesting to note you say nuclear fusion is a reliable known alternative - can you put a time-line on that, for me, engineer? While you're at it, perhaps you could summarise the comparative costs between say, IFR and fusion.

I am comfortable going back to my "box", it is double the size with both chemical engineering and science. You on the other hand, demonstrate the typical 'anti-science' mind set of many wistful engineering undergraduates.