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 > Climate change causes backflips > Comments

Climate change causes backflips : Comments

By Paul Gilding, published 8/5/2006

No wonder more Greens are supporting nuclear power.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
This is rather a technical one.let alone geography,but considering all,this is something only Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun in Melbourne,can answer?.
Posted by KAROOSON, Monday, 8 May 2006 12:11:42 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
I agree on a couple of things; that we have to have an emissions penalty or quota system and that the winning technologies will reveal themselves in due course. I think that wind, solar and biofuel will fill a useful niche but conspicuously fail to plug the gap based on current consumption. Countries like Denmark and Germany that trumpet their commitment to renewables may soon have to reconsider the nuclear option. This is because much of their energy gap is filled by unreliable and dwindling gas supplies, to which nuclear savvy countries like France are less vulnerable. By the year 2010 several things will have happened: in Australia we will be wincing at other countries doing well on our uranium, more Cat 5 cyclones and droughts will seem to correlate with profligate coal burning, and we will wonder whatever became of hydrogen cars and clean coal. By then I think the public will decide nuclear is not so bad. However it may be another decade before the first of many nuclear power plants is up and running.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 8 May 2006 1:21:32 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 recent promotion of nuclear energy is not about energy at all - it is about profit. It is about stockmarket movements.

Nuclear power is unviable, both economically and in terms of nett energy production after decommisioning. (even without a Chernobyl/3MIle Island scenario). That is why it was scaled right down in the 80's - not because of protests but because it simply made an economic loss in the long term.

The third world needs energy, the first world need more energy and the general public is scared by climate change. This is perfect for the global stock market. Yellowcake, which has been stockpiled for decades has been losing it's price as nuclear power has been discredited since the 70's. There have been some very cheap stock to buy, before all the publicity about peak oil and greenhouse emissions. Now all that has changed and yellowcake is a viable economic commodity, even if not a viable energy source..

In the end, the speculators palm off their inflated shares to suckers, (e.g. Enron or Telstra) or the corporations make the third world suckers by committing them to power station contracts they won't be able to afford in the long term. Either way, once the profit has been made the speculator washes their hands of the ecological and economic consequences, (e.g. union carbide in Bhopal) leaving us all - but particularly the third world - carrying the can and looking for solutions - and paying for them.

It is astounding that the nuclear lobby can get the WWF to support nuclear power. . If things are so desparate to consider nuclear, I wonder what are the obstacles to wind farms?. I bet a lot of Ukranian Parrots died of radiation poisoning after Cernobyl. It would be interesting to see the effect of fossil fuel power stations in Australia on Parrot health too.
Posted by King Canute, Monday, 8 May 2006 1:24:24 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
Interesting to hear that some people think nuclear energy is not economically viable. I suppose that might come as a surprise to the French who I gather get around 80% of their electricity from nuclear reactors, and I think all their fuel is imported (much from us). While nuclear energy is not 'safe' neither is fossil fuel. Air pollution largely contributed to by fossil fuel burning kills many people each year particularly in heavily populated cold-climate countries. Coal mining accidents kill as many each year in China alone as are predicted to ultimately die from the world's only serious nuclear accident, Chernobyl. Wind and solar power will never be able to provide energy other than at the fringes. Hydro has its resource limits and environmental consequences. Australia has huge uranium deposits, seems just a matter of time before it is used at home.

Recently I heard of experiments into obtaining nuclear energy from an element other than from uranium. I forget the name of the little-known element that is mentioned, but apprently Australia has the world's largest deposits of it. It is apparently much safer than uranium and produces less waste, but things are only in the experimental stage (overseas, not here - sound familiar?)
Posted by PK, Monday, 8 May 2006 3:15:30 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
To stop wind generator construction to save the orange bellied parrot seems strange. Wouldn’t areas with wind turbines be safer for parrots?. There would be no residential development around them and the cat and dog population would not be as great. A little bit of native vegetation may also survive. The blades move slowly on the turbines and I can’t see them as parrot killers.
I have seen the wind turbines against the North sea in Holland, Germany and Denmark and I think they look great. They also keep out residential and high rise development. If you want to find a wild area against the North sea you will one day need to seek out a wind turbine area.
Posted by SILLE, Monday, 8 May 2006 3:30:45 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
nuclear power is unviable when you include the decommissioning of reactors into the equation. France and other places may well be using nuclear power now but they will pay heavily over time as reactors reach the end of their lives.

construction energy plus decommisioning energy needs to be subtracted from the gross energy output to get an idea of it's real viability. similarly financial costs.

This goes for all energy sources including photo-voltaic cells which don't rate so well on this model either.

The simplicity of a magnetic generator makes wind a much better option.

reducing energy consumption is even better. We have lived for millions of years without electricity but now we cannot conceive of a world cutting down energy use.
Posted by King Canute, Monday, 8 May 2006 3:51:31 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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