.

Well judyC a spirited paean to renewable sources as against those horrids others power
quote " The silly part about the nuclear industry is we do not need it..... Renewable technology is viable now and with a concerted effort we can get
rid of coal." unquote

here is the state of energy now in the world
oil............. 38%
coal............ 25%
gas..............23%
nuke .............6%
biomass...........4%
hydro.............3%
solar thermal.... 0.5%
wind..............0.3%
geothermal........0.2%
biofuels..........0.15%
photovoltaic......0.04%
the totality of renewable minus hydro is equivalent to the margin of error on the big three carbon

fixed wind energy has been in use since the hight middle age
biomass since the olduvai gorge
hydrolic since the great rivers civilizations
NO renewable energy is remotely competitive against fossil fuel by a factor of 10 ,
considering the great amount of subsidies poured into them they are a brilliant example of subventions being throw into a wind .
we are talking here of energy , the very life of modern , democratic , advanced society it happen around the 5 Kw/P/D
australia consumtion is 7Kw/P/D
china is 2Kw/P/D and rising with their standard of living
at 1Kw/P/D it's third world , military coup or some tyranny , the women are back at the bottom of the heap
at 0.5 Kw/P/D starvation is a fact of life no organized society can survive

So , sure get the wind mills turning we might get to 1Kw/P/D on a good springtime day !

.

Renewables are not competitive today because the only criteria used is the current cost which does not take into account the pollution value.
We need a pollution tax on the nasties. Nuclear is not in the hunt because it could not be viable without government subsidies and its waste control costs go on into infinity!
If we stopped subsidising the energy costs of Alcoa in Australia and earmarked the Federal Government subsidies for "clean coal" research to renewables we could do it!
Read George Monbiot and find out why even Europe could set up a grid of different renewable technologies and survive. It just takes the will to protect our vulnerable little planet.

Nuclear is dirty, unsafe and unaffordable. If we converted the world's energy production to nuclear we would run out of uranium in less than 10 years. It's a fossil fuel, a finite resource. Haven't we learnt from our mistakes with oil (production has peaked, demand still escalating) and coal (climate change)? What do you need to extract uranium, process it and transport fuel and waste? OIL! Oil production has peaked and burning it causes global warming. Clean and green nuclear? I don't think so - what a lie.
A mix of renewable technologies can supply our energy needs, but we need to get serious about efficiency and smart choices like local food production, public transport, etc. Why waste billions of dollars on a dangerous, dirty, expensive dead end like nuclear power when it can only provide for our needs (or greed?) for a decade or two?
Reneable energy is just that, renewable. So let's put the investment where it will last and secure our energy for the future.

Export renewables, not cancer. Thank you so much Helen!

“Nuclear is dirty, unsafe and unaffordable.”

A meaningless slogan copied from the ACF.

Could we have some quantifiable evidence please? Could we have authenticated data comparing the economics of nuclear with other forms of power generation?

How about some information on the capacity factor for wind and solar? [ mean. SE, and range etc.].

Could somebody supply information on the pollutants such as heavy metals released into the environment from the manufacture of photovoltaic cells?

Anti-green

Here's the latest figures for only one uranium mine in Australia and a alumina company. Source: The National Pollutant Inventory. These estimates, I have concluded long ago, are very conservative.

URANIUM MINE:-

Volatile organic compounds (VOC) = 88,000 kgs

Nitrous oxides (NOx) = 1,500,000 kgs

Particulate matter (PM) = 2,400,000 kgs

Carbon monoxide (CO) = 430,000 kgs

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) = 1,500,000 kgs

I have not yet been able to access documents for radioactive emissions.

Now in fairness to the uranium company, let's compare the figures above with a really big polluter, shall we? This one's been in the media lately due to Erin Brockovich considering a class action against the company allegedly poisoning whole communities:

ALUMINA COMPANY:-

VOC's = 140,000 kgs

NOx = 850,000 kgs

PM = 320,000 kgs

CO = 730,000 kgs

SO2 = 60,000 kgs

Bear in mind, Anti-green, you will need to greatly multiply the uranium emissions, due to the advent of a resurgence in uranium mining (that's if you get your way!)

In the advent of the adoption of solar energy, I remind you that the manufacturers are addressing the issue of heavy metals head on.

Unlike the nuclear industry in denial, solar energy experts are aware of the potential of pollutants in the solar technology and have already manufactured a lead free solder, in consideration of future decommissionings.

I doubt the new solar energy technology will be released before these problems have been solved. Those irresponsible actions belong to yesterday's men in the uranium and nuclear industry!

This whole nuclear debate is on how to reduce atmospheric pollution - CO2, greenhouse gases and other destructive and harmful pollutants.

Therefore, I must reiterate:

"If at first you don't succeed, why go on and make a fool of yourself?

.
To judyC
" Renewables are not competitive today because the only criteria used is the current cost which does not take into account the pollution value."

Well the comparisons have to be done on an equal footing , the pollution cost of etching silicon with solvents bath and fluoridric acid should be considered ,
so should the birds flying into the wind turbines blades .
or visual pollution of a pristine coastline disfigured by wind turbines , I wouldn't want a 50 Kw 20m tall mast with rotating blades in my backyard certainly !
the total amount of nuclear waste is about 1% of all industrial hazardous waste , in fact most of the low level waste is NOT radioactive at all , it's clothing , hand tools ,personnal gear or general supplies , the newspapers read in the control room of a plant is deemed by procedure to be waste.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
As I posted above in Australia ,universities and hospitals have tonnes of waste stored all over the metropolitan cities in unsecured and unidentified places ,
because it doesn't matter
Where on earth do you get the notion that Alcoa is subsidized by the government
there are four times as much federal money going to waste on renewable pipe dreams as there is on decreasing the greenhouse effect of coal
for memory coal produce 95% of our electrical energy , renewable zilch % . anyone with a shred of common sense would accept the wisdom of fixing the largest Co2 emitter first .

then " why even Europe could set up a grid of different renewable technologies and survive."

A few facts about electrical power generation in europe
total gross production 3206622 in GigaWatt /h of which nuclear .....973491 or 30%

let's drop the french and their 83% nuclear electrical generation and 59 nuclear plants
other European countries
UK 23 ,Germany 17 ,Sweden 10, Spain 8 , Belgium 7, Switzerland 5
Holland 1
also Canada 1

Are those people deluded or is it the anti nuclear movement witch has some problem with a pet hate ?

.