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 > The nuclear house of cards > Comments

The nuclear house of cards : Comments

By Mia Pepper, published 20/11/2014

In the face of nuclear war, nuclear disaster, public opposition, financial struggle, and the growth and competitiveness of renewable technologies, the house of cards that is the nuclear industry is bound to collapse again.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
An afterthought:
What possible difference can it make, if we as a race can destroy our planet 40 times over, or fifty!?
House of cards indeed!
If only the world were led by pragmatists, we'd continue to use up weapons grade fissile materials in far safer domestic power!
And in so doing, end the threat of mutually assured destruction!
But for now, our species and all oxygen breathing, plant or protein consuming lifeforms, are threatened by climate change!
We should act now while we still have time?
[And even then it surely will be a very close run thing!]
To reverse some of this money faced madness/moral turpitude.
Thank God for the Chinese, single government pragmatism and undeniable proof!
Anyone who believes we can get by selling coal to China or India, has to have rocks in the head or Shiite for brains!
Better we should take such advantages as we have as cheaper than coal thorium energy, and use that to build a long term high tech manufacturing base/future. And right here right now!
Who cares if a few foreign coal kings go broke? Stiff cheddar!
And that just has to mean governments getting back into the energy business, as opposed to trying to duck shove/sell off core responsibilities. Who do they serve?
If the public ownership model is broken then fix it!
And that is as simple as creating independent corporations and completely autonomous competing duopolies!
Stop with the elf evident micromanagement and take a good long hard look at the big picture, and inevitable outcomes!
Time for cool heads and timely pragmatic change!
If only to finally and logically, to resuscitate the non mining economy, that still needs to make and sell things!
And if you can't manage that, then look forward to many more one term governments!
Get real or get out! Or vote for pragmatism and cooperation in the selected leaders!
And wouldn't that make a nice change from the unprincipled power hungry? By their fruits ye shall know them!
Clearly our future is not in coal, but our ultimate annihilation may well be!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 20 November 2014 11:59:16 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
PL. you know full well there are endless "studies" and "reports" on BOTH sides of the nuke question, and virtually ALL of them are from vested interests of one side or another, which makes it meaningless to cherrypick bits and pieces to support any discussion.
That's why I'm not interested in constantly rehashing the same old stuff over and over.
I cannot help but wonder how much serious research and consideration YOU have devoted to anyone that disagrees with you yourself?

I do notice though that you prove my point about "the elephant in the room".
Or do you believe that radioactivity is harmless and that the mining, transport, use of, and disposal, of ore and processed uranium, let alone the residual waste of every step thereof, are entirely risk-free?
Would that it were so, but it ain't, and that's a fact even you can't change.
Too, I said nada about renewables, I'll save that for a different discussion, bar suggesting that it's a valid case of the "economies of scale", a sufficiently large and varied combination of generation types solves all the so-called "problems" claimed by the existing monopolies that are resisting such developments to protect their own artificial profit margins.
Posted by G'dayBruce, Thursday, 20 November 2014 12:24:16 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
Peter, YOU do not understand. I did not and would not claim that human ENERGY input was significant. I was referring to human VALUE input.

EROEI itself is a red herring except when it's very low. And of course true EROEI (including fuel) is below 1 for all fossil fuel power.

Renewables have a lower running cost than nuclear or fossil fuels, and that running cost is still falling. That's their key advantage.

Though providing figures can be useful, it can also be worse than useless if they're based on incorrect assumptions.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 20 November 2014 2:42:51 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
G'dayBruce and Adian,

I am happy to have a rational debate with anyone who wants it. I don't believe either of you want it or are prepared to enter into a rational debate.

Steps:

1. Do you agree to participate in a rational debate and to the rules. I agree to abide by the three boxes here, Do you? http://twentytwowords.com/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion/

2. Do you accept and agree to follow the 10 signs of intellectual honesty and 10 sighs of intellectual dishonesty? : http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

3. Do you accept that for a rational debate we have to compare like with like? We must use the same units for comparison and the same methods for getting the figures to compare renewables and nuclear?

4. Do you accept the key criteria for comparison are:
a) energy security?
b) reliability of supply?
c) cost of electricity?

5. Do you agree that cost of electricity shall mean it includes all costs and benefits on a life cycle analysis basis and this includes all future risks (risk are cost x probability of occurrence)

6. Do you agree evidence must be from credible authoritative sources such as IEA, EIA, DOE, EPRI, OECD, NEA, WNA,WHO, BREE, UK DECC, ExternE, NEEDS and similar authoritative sources.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 20 November 2014 3:31:07 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
Nice try PL but no.
Simply put, stats and vested interests have muddied the waters beyond rationality, the big power generators are completely unreliable for factual data, as are governments, which renders any other investigation or source of evaluation meaningless.
Despite your imputation the fact that I or anyone else won't play your game does NOT reflect badly on our opinions or outlook, nor does it detract from their validity, in my case it simply means I've done that to death and have realised the futility thereof.

Meanwhile....LOOK....ELEPHANT....over there...behind you! :lol:
Posted by G'dayBruce, Thursday, 20 November 2014 7:46:46 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
"IEA chief economist Faith Bristol"?! Try Fatih Birol, Mia.

Says it all.
Posted by Mark Duffett, Thursday, 20 November 2014 9:38:46 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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