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 carbon-induced lament > Comments

A carbon-induced lament : Comments

By Peter Catt, published 22/1/2013

To deal with global warming means sacrificing life as we know it - no wonder we are paralysed by grief as we face the loss.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. All
Warmair, it is quite simple.
If you want to maintain our current standard of living and/or improve
the standard for those billions that are not as well off as us then
there is no alternative but to build up to five times the current
generation capacity using nuclear or geothermal or both.

If you don't like that option, then start farming or be an undertaker
in the third world.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 31 January 2013 10:26:23 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
Bazz,

"...or improve the standard for those billions that are not as well off as us then..."

Yeah.....save the crocodile tears. It's the West looking out for the West.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/goldman-bankers-get-rich-betting-on-food-prices-as-millions-starve-8459207.html
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 31 January 2013 11:16:55 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
Not sure of your point Poirot.
The point I was making has nothing to do with what is charged for food.
We will have a problem generating enough electricity to produce the
same amount of food that we now produce.
We may be too late now, but if not we should already have let contracts for non coal power stations.
It really is that simple.

The alternative is to grow our own food.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 31 January 2013 1:15:48 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 area of nuclear power I have the biggest problem with is the economic cost.
When you look into the question you will find plenty of estimates for how much nuclear power might cost in future but very little about historical costs. The few historical figures that I have been able to find indicate costs in some cases as much as 5 times conventional coal plants. I use coal plants as an example simply because that is how most electricity is produced. At present nuclear plants are probably becoming more expensive due to increased concerns about safety whereas renewables are becoming steadily cheaper.

The high initial cost also encourages running the plant as long as possible with suggestions that new plants should be designed to run for up to 60 years. This is crazy think about the sort of cars we were using 60 years ago and compare them to a modern car. I don't how we will be producing power in 60 years time but I very much doubt it will be by using equipment designed and built 60 years previously. The only thing that idea does is to mess with the real costs.

The concern I have is that we will go off on a tangent chasing very high tech expensive solutions which will not leaves us with enough money to replace our worst polluting power plants. What do we reckon the cost is of 1000 mega watt plant $5 billion ? or suppose Australia were to have a nuclear accident on the scale of Fukushima, think for a moment how much renewable power could be installed for the cost of just the clean up (A$40 billion).

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-cost.html

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/nuclear-its-just-too-expensive-for-us-and-the-rest-of-the-world-20100225-p4y3.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Nuke%2C_coal%2C_gas_generating_costs.png/800px-Nuke%2C_coal%2C_gas_generating_costs.png

Note the small note on the bottom of the graph (*) Does not include waste disposal
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 31 January 2013 1:47:17 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
Quite possibly you are right Warmair, but if we cannot afford to build
them or geothermal, it is too bad, billions will die and we will be
back to farming and trying to keep a few wind turbines and solar
installations running.
Note I m talking of the time up to 2050, so it will not worry me, but
certainly my sons and grandchildren will be concerned.

There is no way solar and wind will be able to generate five times our
present generating capacity, so definitely something else is needed.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 31 January 2013 7:48:40 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
There is plenty of room for to reduce our electricity consumption and still achieve the same level of comfort just as a simple example moving to led lights has the potential to make big savings. Even without doing a great deal electricity consumption has only risen slightly since the mid 2000s in Australia.

If we only use fossil fuels for essentials like operating farm equipment we could radically reduce our emissions without messing up the planet,and still enjoy a very satisfactory standard of living. There are even examples of farms which produce enough methane to power their equipment. It is perfectly acceptable to use biofuel provided it does not reduce the land available for food production.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-25/methane-conversion-makes-piggery-carbon-neutral/4332602

The main problem with renewables is lack of storage which is solvable by a verity of means such as pumped hydro, rechargeable batteries and thermal storage.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-baseload-power.htm

The potential energy available from renewables is way beyond anything we are likely to need. In Australia we have access to a wide range of viable renewables. North of the great divide the number of days when there is neither solar or wind are few and far between. Solar thermal can be made to work day and night plus we also have hydro power available as a back up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#High-temperature_collector
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 31 January 2013 9:27:44 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. All

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