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 > French exceptionalism: a guide through the energy wars > Comments

French exceptionalism: a guide through the energy wars : Comments

By Fred Hansen, published 19/5/2008

The French experience shows that nuclear power can curb dependence on fossil fuels and the emission of greenhouse gases.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Problem: We have been satisfying our energy needs using finite resources that create dangerous waste products.

Solution: Satisfy our energy needs using a finite resource that creates dangerous waste products.

Brilliant.
Posted by chainsmoker, Monday, 19 May 2008 10:38:06 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
Note: Apologies to James Hanson - I was tripped up by the mistaken author link. So just who is Fred Hanson? Seems he has written quite a bit for the Adam Smith Institute that is, "Britain’s leading innovator of free-market economic and social policies." Typical!
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Monday, 19 May 2008 11:12:59 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
Hohum,

Your post is typical of the followers of the green religion.

You say>>” And who is going to clean up and look after the radioactive mess of the dismantled sites and the waste produced in the process, for the next how many tens of thousands of years?

All nuclear power plants, when they are costed, take into account the costs of decommissioning and waste storage. So when someone says a plants costs x billion dollars it includes decommissioning and waste.

You say “ And will the dump/disposal sites maintain their structural integrity over these vast time scales?”

Engineers expect that without maintenance hoover damn will still be around in 10,000 years. There is no reason why a concrete bunker in solid ground in the middle of Australia shouldn’t last as long if not longer.

You say >> “And how many hundreds of nuclear plants would we have to build to cater for the burgeoning world-wide energy demands.”

How many alternative energy sites will need to be built, if it were even possible to run all our power using these technologies? 10 or 100 times more, that’s how many.

You say >> And how long would it take to build them, and what kind of vast resources would be necessary to do so?

What kind of vast resources will be needed to be 10 times as many alternative energy plants? How long will that take?

You say >>” And what about the NECESSARILY coercive police state politics involved. Including the secure guarding of the waste sites.”

WTF, Police state politics? What kind of trip are you on? You have obviously never been to a police state, OR maybe you call the communist police states, “workers paradises”. What on earth could possibly be wrong with protecting nuclear waste from criminals and terrorists?
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 19 May 2008 11:24:00 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
The French decision to go nuclear 35 years ago has certainly put them in an enviable position as the rest of Europe struggles with its fossil fuel dependence and the consequent difficulty of reducing GHG emissions.

But only on OLO would this topic be used as the basis for an anti-environmental diatribe by a medical doctor with no environmental or energy credentials who specialises in polemics outside his area of expertise. Typical.
Posted by NorthWestShelf, Monday, 19 May 2008 12:08:16 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
If "nuclear power can curb dependence on fossil fuels and the emission of greenhouse gases", what will eventually curb dependence on nuclear power and the emissions from radioactivity?

Ultimately this industrial age will decline, as will living standards and population numbers. The pertinent questions are not whether this will happen, the answer to that is in simple physics and the laws of thermodynamics. The greatest challenges humanity faces are:

1) how soon will the decline take hold - it may be we are already seeing the first signs of that, and

2) how do we mange the decline so as to temper the economic and social ructions that will inevitably flow from the 'have nots' not having the basics humans need to survive.

An international 'Oil Depletion Protocol' may not be implemented in time for managing the downside of the oil product life-cycle. Perhaps we will one day see a 'Coal Depletion Protocol', a 'Gas Depletion Protocol', and/or 'Uranium / Thorium Depletion Protocols' to manage the ultimate diminution of all cheap energy sources.

Then we may be able to enter into a post-industrial age with lifestyles that merge the lessons of the industrial age with the resources of the pre-industrial era.

If it is all going to happen eventually, then why not start now? Perhaps we can then find civilisation.

GREENLIGHT
Posted by Greenlight, Monday, 19 May 2008 3:15:41 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
Greenlight,

Maybe we should all live in in mud huts and be vegetarians. I'm sure the green lobby would approve, however i sincerely doubt that most greenies would have the staying power required.

Your hypothesis of the fall of industrialised society is the most laughable nonsense. Why don't you stop breathing air now since it is inevitable that one day you will.

Most of these worshippers of the green religion seem to me they would be happier if there were no humans on earth.

Frankly, if there are no humans left on Earth I could not give less of a f@ck what happens to the planet. Its a resource that has been provided for us. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look after it, but it also doesn't mean we shouldn't use its bounties.

Nuclear is a absolute no-brainer. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, nuclear is the way to go.

It's like people who are afraid of aeroplanes but not driving a car. You are hundreds of times more likely to die in a car, but some people you just can't convince. Nuclear has injured or killed hundreds of times fewer people than the coal and other fossil fuel industries. But the "true believers" don't care.

There is hundreds of years worth of uranium and other nuclear material and they are already working on technology that can reuse spent fuel making the raw material last 10 to 100 times longer. I think we can probably solve the dilemma of sustainable energy within that time period. Don't you?
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 19 May 2008 3:32:03 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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