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 > Electricity: no end to the damage regulations are doing > Comments

Electricity: no end to the damage regulations are doing : Comments

By Alan Moran, published 17/2/2017

There is no let up in the lies, ignorance and dissembling that passes for debate on Australian energy policy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The best and clearest OLO article yet on Australia's electricity problems.
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 19 February 2017 3:48:31 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
Adian, I'll back my 8 grams of thorium against your 8 grams of hydrogen, to still be providing erg for erg of energy, now today, until your 8 grams of hydrogen has exhausted its available to us, now today, energy.

And even with an 80% energy coefficient, with just 8 grams of thorium, powering my vehicle. I'll go cruising on by long after your stalled hydrogen powered variant burns 8 tons of hydrogen!

It might have escaped your attention, but hydrogen is at the start of the periodic table, while thorium is down near the bottom. And so typical of quite deliberate errant green misinformation.

Now you might be right, but only if you are talking about fusion and endless reclaiming the nuclear fusion byproducts. But we haven't got billions of years for your, par for the course, mischievous vexatious claim to be validated.

Even so, fertile thorium is at least four times more abundant than fissile uranium. And needs no enrichment to be useful.

A light water reactor is arguably the least efficient reactor, producing as much as 95% waste and traditional enriched uranium rods, not very much better. Whereas, thorium consumes as much as 95% of its mass and the vastly less toxic waste, suitable for long life space batteries.

Suggest you stick to something you actually know something about, as opposed to just opening your mouth to change socks! And to be expected when the diabolically dense, school dunce relies almost exclusively on russian supplied BS links!

I've worked in the power industry, and handled radioactive material daily. There are just three kinds of people in the world, those that can count and those that can't. Suggest you belong to the latter group and for you 1+1 comes out 11? 2+2 22. 3+3 33 etc/etc.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 19 February 2017 9:39:46 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
Alan B., your proposition is interesting.
You say that you have experience in the power and nuclear industries, so could you please outline, in simple layman terms, how a thorium power generator works and what are its components.
Also it would be interesting to gain some simple explanation of your costings of $100 to procure 8 grams of thorium.
I guess what I'm asking is how a thorium propulsion system would power your car and home.
Thanks.
Posted by Ponder, Sunday, 19 February 2017 9:52:28 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
Alan B.,
Of course I was referring to fusion. Every engineer knows that nuclear processes are more energy dense than non nuclear processes. And IIRC even without reclaiming the byproducts, hydrogen is more energy dense than thorium.

Of course we're much further away from commercialising fusion reactors than thorium reactors. But for ages you've been droning on about your preferred technology as if it's ready to go. But it'll be a few years yet before it is, and during that time the economics of electricity generation could change markedly.

And WTF are these "russian supplied BS links"?
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 20 February 2017 10:17:59 AM
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
Energy security is a very thin argument as blackouts have occurred in States where there is no huge reliance on solar or wind generation. Tasmania utilises hydro power, while NSW and Queensland rely on coal; where were the comments about energy security when blackouts happened in these States?

Coal creates a number of hidden costs; some being in health, and through environmental damage. The awesomeness of the Great Barrier Reef provides employment for some 70,000 people it is often reported. Currently, the GBR is once again in danger of coal bleaching through warming waters picked up via NOAA satellite thermal maps, and by observations of local divers.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/20/images-of-new-bleaching-on-great-barrier-reef-heighten-fears-of-coral-death

the first paragraphs state:

"The embattled Great Barrier Reef could face yet more severe coral bleaching in the coming month, with areas badly hit by last year’s event at risk of death.

Images taken by local divers last week and shared exclusively with the Guardian by the Australian Marine Conservation Society show newly bleached corals discovered near Palm Island.

Most of the Great Barrier Reef has been placed on red alert for coral bleaching for the coming month by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Its satellite thermal maps have projected unusually warm waters off eastern Australia after an extreme heatwave just over a week ago saw land temperatures reach above 47C in parts of the country."
Posted by ant, Monday, 20 February 2017 11:27:49 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
A reference provided by the Washington Post earlier obtains a high score from scientists in relation to Oceans (Page 2 @ 19.2, 1.48pm).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/15/its-official-the-oceans-are-losing-oxygen-posing-growing-threats-to-marine-life/?utm_term=.d70488d5aeb3&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-just-detected-major-change-earths-oceans-linked-warming-climate-chris-mooney-the-washington-post/

Take away messages:

1. There has been a detectable decrease in oxygen concentrations in the ocean. This trend is projected to continue as the oceans warm.

2. Areas of the ocean that are extremely low in oxygen significantly impact local ecosystems. The trend of decreasing oxygen concentrations is associated with increasing consequences for marine life.

3. The warming of the world’s oceans also has many other impacts, including sea level rise and “positive feedbacks” that can further enhance global warming.

The economics of coal do not add up when the consequences are taken into account.
Professor Anderson has termed economists as astrologers on the basis that salient costs are not taken into account.
Posted by ant, Monday, 20 February 2017 2:04:20 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. All

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