Artilleryman,

Can't you figure it out?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

This article indicates the BMP for hydrogen based fuels is METHANOL, produced at mini-PBR nuclear sites from Hydrogen gas and a waste-CO2 stream from a linked, possibly small clean coal power station.

Remember: ITS ALL THERMODYNAMICS FROM THIS POINT ON. The imminent disappearance of oil and the blatant overestimation of reserves by certain influential producing countries(Brazil, Russia) are just a clue to what is really happening. The pump price of gas over the NEXT 3 years will tell the real story and we had better be dressed READY for the occasion, a nuclear boot on the left foot, a Geothermal boot on the other and yes a green energy hat if it can help.

And if its NOT safe, secure well researched PBR technology going from in-ground-drill solvation-uranium-extraction to deep-sea-subduction-zone-disposal then its NOT ON.

AS for human overpopulation from henceforth it also must be .. IF ITS NOT ON TS NOT ON. You know that other PBR protection?

I mean people CAN keep breeding like rabbits GOING 4 ECONOMIC GROWTH if they like. I can't stop them. But they are all going to be knee deep in dead bodies within 20 years if they are UNLUCKY enough to survive.

Those individuals espousing Go 4 GROWTH and whining about what planet WE will leave for their GRANDCHILDREN are quite simply a bloody ignorant DISGRACE.

With THERMODYNAMICS its proper planning to PREVENT Poor Performance. That planning involves having the maximum ENTROPY gradient from electric power generation station SOURCE to coastal sea SINK that you think you will need at PEAKOIL and treble it! You don't muck about with the second-law-of-thermodynamics as it applies to human civilisaions and LIFE. Especially when its Australian lives, digger.

How the hell can wanting sufficent, proactive investment and belief in the potential for our country to become a world leader in sustainable, clean, safer technology be considered "backwards thinking"? Do some here propose energy efficiency and conservation "backwards" and irrational too?

NUCLEAR POWER IN DECLINE:
Brussels 21.11.2007
Nuclear energy: New report highlights nuclear decline in spite of industry talk of renaissance.
'World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007'
http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/pressreleases/dok/206/206845.nuclear_energy@en.htm

Quote: "False promises for a nuclear revival could lead to misplaced public expenditure, delaying a more intelligent and sustainable approach to energy supply. In addition, plans for building new reactors would be in direct competition for the limited manufacturing capacity that is already stretched by the maintenance costs for existing (aging) reactors."

The report:
http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/206/206749.the_world_nuclear_industry_status_report@en.pdf

Conclusions:
http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/
206/206808.conclusions_world_nuclear_industry_statu@en.pdf

As far as "The whole process can be monitored by the IAEC including the shipment and storage of waste" (I think you mean the IAEA)
- Are you sure? When military nuclear facilities are exempt from the "safegaurds" system and even the Director General of the IAEA Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, has noted that the IAEA's basic rights of inspection are "fairly limited", that the safeguards system suffers from "vulnerabilities" and it "clearly needs reinforcement", that efforts to improve the system have been "half-hearted", and that the safeguards system operates on a "shoestring budget ... comparable to that of a local police department ".
(http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/index.html)

Shadow Minister ("Biofuel
a) reuse of waste material - very cost effective, in waste dumps, sugar mills and pulp mills, but limited to maybe 0.5%.
b) specially grown biofuels, extremely expensive.")
as I pointed out earlier, Australia ALREADY generates enough electricity (again, this is just just 64% of global contribution to GHG emissions - I wonder when that will kick into peoples' minds) from bio-energy to supply all homes in Tas. By 2020 bio-energy could supply a third of Australia's electricity if it expands at the current 3% average for industrialised countries, generating an estimated 250,000 jobs.

The facts still stand on nuclear:
- Too slow (10-15 yrs for a reactor plus a further 10 or more to recoup its energy costs),
- Contributes to GHG emissions at every stage other than the fission process: U mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing, all facility construction and maintenance, reactor decomissioning, waste storage and management, and all related transports. The 2006 Switkowski report states that wind power is three times more greenhouse-friendly than nuclear power.
- Contributes to nuclear WMDs via infrastructure, expertise, covert research, the fuels themselves and ineffective, un-enforceable international "safeguards"
- Contributes to known and proven terrorism risks, massive water use, wastes for which there remains no solution for the periods required
- Diverts attention from world-leading sustainable, existing safer alternatives and research.

Move on.

"Expansion of nuclear fuel cycle activities need not be part of a response to climate change.
"The draft report appears to the Review Panel to underestimate the challenge that will confront Australia if it should choose to expand the scope of its nuclear activities". - the Australian Government's official peer review of the Ziggy Switkowski draft report, chaired by (pro-nuclear) Australian Chief Scientist Dr Jim Peacock, (9/12/2000).

Isn't amazing how all these alternate technologies "Could" contribute to the generation of the electricity that we need. It remains to be seen how much they actually "Will" contribute though.

There are a lot of dreamers out there still.

Dream on.

David

Sylvia

"The missing words are "on average." Appliances don't run well on average power, and this is no trivial issue."

It's acknowledged at this stage of wind power research that an alternative energy back-up is necessary. This problem pales into insignificance compared to the infinite dilemma created from the disposal of radioactive waste and the additional, adverse radiation effects on all life forms.

The UK wind project to which you refer promises to significantly mitigate the obstacles of unreliable wind sources:

"Building a wind farm exposed to the full force of the Atlantic Ocean could open up a whole new area for offshore development."

Furthermore, wind and solar energy could be supplemented by biomass or geothermal.

During 2006, $100 billion was invested in renewables and the market shows no sign of abating.

"Curious" is the description for the argument from the pro-nukes. Nuclear reactors have been operating since 1951 and yet supply only 16% of the worlds energy needs.

However, according to the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, renewable energy already supplies 18% of the world's electricity.

The US's 104 operating reactors supply just 19% of America's energy needs. Doesn't this indicate that the US would need to manufacture hundreds of new reactors in a minimum timeframe to make a difference? That won't happen.

And according to the UIC, as of 06/07 the US had only 7 reactors on order or planned.

Despite the 104 "clean energy" nuclear reactors in the US, the rise in radiation-related and other cancers gives cause for concern:

Between 1973 - 1999 kids (median age now 6 for diagnoses) cancers rose by:

Bone and joint:................................44 %

Brain cancers...................................51 %

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemias.........61.7 %

Adult cancers rose by:

Malignant melanomas..................156 %

Leukemias......................................45 %

Liver cancers................................104 %

Lung cancers.................................103 %

Testis...............................................67 %

Prostate..........................................105 %

Non Hodgkin Lymphona............. 88 %

Thyroid Cancers.............................71 %

Protests and denials from the NRC and the IAEA ring hollow when they continue to dumb down the effects of radiation on human health (including low-level radiation) but the science has long proven there is no margin for error in this redundant industry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/national/17nuke.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1196219904-s3drTvOHvV2SRxmNittZBA

http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/feb98/nuclear.html

Sylvie,

By solar at home, I was talking about solar water heating, which is cost effective. This also deals with the storage issue. Wind depends on where you are.

Yes, this is mostly because of the relative high cost of domestic power, but this can contribute significantly to power consumed if not the infrastructure needed.

Xoddam,

Long distance reticulation exists, but the cost of infrastructure is prohibitive and only cost effective on massive supplies > 1GW typically from large single sources to major reticulation points. It would not be feasible for scattered small supplies.

The other reason that this would not be feasible for wind farms is the difference between average and peak generation of 5 times. This means building infrastructure for 1GW for average generation of 200MW.

Dickie,

As the background rate of radiation has not increased over the last 30 years, attributing these cancers to nuclear power is extremely tenuous. I could also say that world temperatures have risen 2 degrees in 30 years and as this has a high corelation with cancer, global warming is responsible for the extra cancer suffering.

A more likely explanation is that people are living to a greater age, and as you age you become more susceptible to cancer. For example someone age 70 has five times the chance of developing cancer of a 20 year old over the same period.

Extending life expenctancy by 10 years will probably increase cancer incidence in the general population by 100% on average.

Make no mistake, I believe that all these technologies should be used as effectively as possible, but the targets of Kyoto are going to be very tough to meet, and excluding one of the most effective tools to do the job is foolhardy.