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 > Australia's Achilles heel > Comments

Australia's Achilles heel : Comments

By Julian Cribb, published 16/6/2006

Australia's energy supply research is fragmented, unco-ordinated, riven with self-interest, ad hoc and devoid of national vision.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Justin,

Do some research. PBR Pebbles cannot be used for bombs and have a simpler, safer waste disposal profile. We can SET the agenda for our Uranium exports while using a significant amount of the profits for high density energy research!

But you and all Australian's must think hard: "Do we have a choice?"
Sit on the Uranium and watch the world come get it at the first sign of collapase or exploit it to our advantage and that of the World NOW while we have the opportunity?

Every 50cents added to the price of petrol from here on, we all must ponder where it is leading. All I ask is that we prepare and have a plan that keeps us in the game.
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 19 June 2006 12:52:11 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
I think the key here is balance. How do we get the right mix of energy sources and how do we change that mix over the years as new technologies mature.

All new technology has some risk and we can minimize the risks by spreading it out over a variety of technologies. So far all we hear is a debate about nuclear power.

While I am personally still to be convinced about its merits Kaep does have a point that if it comes to the crunch others might help themselves to our resources if we refuse to sell it.

Boaz also has a good point that we can conserve so much more energy around the home. If only we could find a way for governments to make money out of home generation. Sales tax on solar panels is the only approach so far and of course it puts people off buying them.

Ironically privatising the energy industry has removed one of the biggest levers the governments had. Every MW of home generation is a MW that is not required to be generated in an expensive power station (previously at the tax payers expense). Also private energy companies will want to sell more energy, hardly a good way to encourage conservation. While nationalisation would go against the Zeitgeist, I think we really need to have a creative look at how energy companies fit in our society and tax system.

Great article I hope that the energy debate is not just about nuclear but I suspect we'll have to wait for a change in government before renewable energy has any chance in Australia.
Posted by gusi, Monday, 19 June 2006 1:45:36 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
Kaep, what's the lead in, construction and start up time for pbr pebble technology. It amazes me how knowledgeable you appear and have all the answers, yet so ignorant of the stupidity of your suggestions. We don't have 20 years, we have 0. Whilst your sitting around arguing for ancient environmentally dangerous technologies(nuclear), with a resource supply of about the time it takes to build and put on line, a nuclear power station. Very rational indeed.

You can have all the techo knowledge you want and place yourself on a pedestal, but what are you doing practically. Sure we are about to have a cull of the human race, but it will be those living in close communities that will provide the bulk of the demise. Is that why your so worried, lots of words but little action. No one will come and take our uranium, the logistics required would be immense.

People don't buy and use alternative technology, they want someone or something else to take responsibility for their existence. Its easy to see you have no idea of how far advanced solar and storage technologies are, nor the use of alternative fuels. Nuclear will not provide fuel for internal combustion engines, the present most viable is biofuels, with the developing micro reactors and the huge variety of oil seed crops, diversification farming is easy. You also have the added advantage of many usable by-products and meal.

Our countries energy infrastructure is in a mess, your all worried about peak oil coming. Peak oil is upon us now, considering the huge growth without end in consumption. Asking people in cities to conserve energy is like asking them to give up eating. Urban living relies entirely on remote single point distribution energy. Without electricity, the entire system will shutdown and people will drown in their own mess.

The only rational solution will be diversified and varied energy supplies, not able to be controlled by cartels.
Posted by The alchemist, Monday, 19 June 2006 3:25:19 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
Suggest that folk might like to check out www.energychallenge.com.au and go along to the conference. It all takes place in Sydney at Australian Technology Park, August 16-18, 2006. Pretty much everything commented upon here is being canvassed in the conference agenda by some very good speakers.
Posted by omygodnoitsitsitsyou, Monday, 19 June 2006 3:05:08 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. All

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