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 > Uneconomic power > Comments

Uneconomic power : Comments

By Steve Shallhorn, published 30/5/2006

More nuclear technology would divert capital away from clean, green renewable energy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All
Perhaps Steve Shallhorn should post his costing and safety estimates for windfarms, and other forms of renewable energy, and we can discuss the bits he leaves out.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 3:41:48 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
“Antinuclearaustralia” has the honesty to state that it is not offering a “balanced viewpoint” on its web site. Oh that Greenpeace could be so honest and up front.

Bizarre is it not, there are countries in Europe, Asia and America that find nuclear power economical and cost effective. The improved and interesting design features of the modular fourth generation reactors are not reviewed in the discussion by Greenpeace. The new generation nuclear reactors can be coupled with de-salination and /or hydrogen generation plants.

Steve Shallorn ignores the question of subsidies paid to wind and solar power generation companies. What is the cost to the grid of connecting up farms located in remote but windy areas? What is the cost of training maintenance staff and deploying them in remote areas? For the human toll of wind farms please go to
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/pages/accidentData.htm

Interested persons can find a discussion on other matters raised by Mr. Shallorn such as the management of nuclear waste and the supplies of uranium by visiting the uranium information web site.
http://www.uic.com.au/index.htm

A good natural model for the long time storage of nuclear waste is provided by a study of natural nuclear reactors. These started up in geological time at about 1.8Gy ago. The rocks of the Oklo reactor in the Gabon illustrate how nature has stored fission products and actinides.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdf

The truth is that nuclear energy is a clean, safe and trusted technology.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 5:00:21 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
>>By 2020 the wind industry alone can supply 12 per cent of the world’s electricity needs<<

I just love numbers like these, so I scurried off to find their source - a paper called Windforce 12 published by Greenpeace in 2005.

Unfortunately, nowhere in its fiftytwo pages does it give a single clue as to how this will be achieved. What I did discover was that according to their own statistics:

12% of world capacity in 2020 is 1,254Gw, indicating a total world capacity figure of 10,450Gw.

The report also points out that this is "against the challenging backdrop of a projected two thirds increase of electricity demand by that date", which, tracking back, gives us a current (sorry!) capacity of 6,300Gw

So, out of the additional 4,200Gw increase between now and then, wind power will supply 1,254Gw, less, of course, the presently installed capacity, which at the time of the report was 48,000 Mw, so that's (quick calculation) 1,206Gw.

If these numbers are correct, wind power will be able to substitute less than thirty percent of the *increase* in electricity consumption between now and 2020.

Call me a cynic, but isn't this whistling in the wind? (sorry, it's a bad habit, I know). If consumption continues to increase, and windfarms continue to take thirty percent of that increase, aren't we looking at a situation where the earth will be entirely covered by whirring windmills, and they still cannot meet the demand?

(And before anyone rushes to grab their quill pens to point out the error in that statement, it is no worse an application of statistics than much of that produced by Greenpeace to promote their anti-nuclear position.)

I am not a scientist, and my last recorded school mark at physics was 28%, so I would welcome correction on this.

The other numbers that would really interest me is exactly how many windmills this will need, where they will be sited, who will pay for them, and how will they possibly get planning permission from the council in time for 2020.

Apart from that, an inspirational piece.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 5:34:39 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 performs extremely well on the climate change test. For example, the installed French nuclear generation capacity saves more greenhouse gas emissons than is produced by the entire Australian energy and transport sector(including fugitive emissions from coal mines). That's 400 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent per annum. For those who are concerned about increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, such abatement is serious stuff.
Posted by Siltstone, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 10:02:21 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 issue with nuclear power is that it could make a couple of generations of Aussies very rich. Australia has about 1/4 of the known Uranium supply in the world. A bigger proportion than the Saudis have of oil. Exploitation of this resource would make Peter Costello the Uranium Sheik in Chief and would fund pork barreling and tax cuts for endless elections. Howard is already planning a "UPEC" cartel with the Canadians to control the market.

The problem with renewables is that you can't tax sunshine or wind. A royalty on the suns rays would put us firmly in the banana republic realm and a tax on hot air would see Canberra run up huge deficits.

The nuclear energy "debate" has nothing to do with global warming ( we are not putting a moratorium on coal sales) and everything to do with mineral booms and winning elections.
Posted by gusi, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 3:07:42 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
Gusi,

""The nuclear energy "debate" has nothing to do with global warming ( we are not putting a moratorium on coal sales) and everything to do with mineral booms and winning elections.""

You are right, gusi but you forget a few important things.

Australia will not be able to afford nuclear power for up to 20 years. That is the real red-herring in the debate.

In the meantime, if we are not effective in mining one of the world's most re-wanted resources in the wake of Peak Oil, the world will do it for us. THAT is the SHOWSTOPPER.

To circumvent this problem we MUST mine Uranium and value-add it to PBR pebbles for use in Pebble Bed Reactors.

This has big advantages for Australia:

* Bigger profits from Uranium exports
* No need to worry about mounting external pressures to mine Uranium
* PBR pebbles are useless for bomb making and guarantee World security safety in the use of Uranium for electric power generation
* Developing a scientific infrastructure alongside the very nuclear savvy Canada. An infrastructure that IMO could lead to Australia having a Fusion reactor before we can afford a fission based PBR. The 'laser-printer' style Uranium enrichment technology we have been hearing about in the news is already a stepping stone in this direction.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 7:24:41 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All

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