“I don't see nuclear energy and sustainability as incompatible.”

Well, nuclear energy could help us onto a sustainable footing, by providing an alternative energy source to coal that has the ability to match the magnitude of current usage, and thus smooth the transition to sustainability.

But it isn’t a sustainable industry in itself, because the resource is finite….and not really that big all-considered, at least not the high-grade stuff.

I would much prefer to see us adopt a combination of alternative energy sources, energy-saving devices, alternatives to private cars, and general improvements in energy efficiency…. and leave the poison in the ground.

This will be a harder road in terms of developing energy supply at anything like the current demand. But that may not be a bad thing because it will make us all really work towards saving energy – and it just might help get the idea of population stabilisation, ie a halt to the continuously increasing demand for energy in all its forms of consumption, into the thick heads of our politicians.
.
.
But then there is the issue that I mentioned earlier - (please see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4786#52914 and my subsequent posts under ‘Enriching Australia’).

I reckon this deserves much more serious consideration than the use of nuclear power as an energy source in Australia. I would love to know what you think of it.

Fossil fuels should have been abandoned long ago. We couldn't have had an industrial age without Coal, but now we are entering a new age with new challenges. We've used up the atmospheres ability to absorb CO2 without serious catastrphic climate change.

Not many people realise it but there is in fact Uranium and Thorium in coal beds. It gets burned up along with the rest of the nasty toxic elements present in this black muck and is then pumped directly into our air supply. That's right. Coal plants release more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants do. In fact the waste from nuclear energy is actually captured and isn't all that much. Even without recycling the entire worlds nuclear waste to date could be stored in 40 gallon drums one high without any stacking and only fill one footy stadium.

The resource isn't really all that finite either. By re-processing the spent fuel we would have more than enough Uranium to last us thousands of years. When we are talking about durations like that then we might as well consider it an infinite resource. Already India is building reactors powered by Thorium which is even more plentiful. Long before these Elements run out on Earth we will be mining the rest of the solar system which doubtless holds millions of years worth of Radioisotopes. That's assuming we haven't tapped into Black Holes or something. Its impossible to guess what super high tech futuristic energy sources might be employed at such a distant date.

We don't really have much time to develop new and untested technologies today. Global warming and dimming is accelerating. I also dislike the idea of stabilisation. Stagnation is death in my opinion. Australia should continue to grow. We cannot plan out the future of the human race. Disease, war and unforeseen catastrophe's have always taken their toll on populations and always will in my opinion. Nature will have its way and those nations in the past who have stood still against the ravages of time always succumbed to more virile expanding nations.

“Fossil fuels should have been abandoned long ago.”

I disagree. Coal, oil and gas are fantastic resources. What we should have done long ago was to learn to use them much more wisely. And we should have been willing to tackle the huge increase in population and industrialisation that resulted directly from the opening up of these resources… and the resultant huge increase in consumption rates, and the resultant pollution problems.

That was the issue – the scale of consumption, not the actual use of these polluting energy sources.

“Not many people realise it but there is in fact Uranium and Thorium in coal beds.”

Yes but at inconsequential concentrations, or at least concentrations that are nowhere near viable to extract. The radiation emitted by coal-fired power stations is likewise inconsequential. Granite is a pretty high emitter of radiation as rock types go, especially the younger types. But that has never stopped us from living in granitic country.

Radiation of the radioactive decay types is everywhere. It’s the concentration that counts.

“I also dislike the idea of stabilisation. Stagnation is death in my opinion. Australia should continue to grow.”

Wayne, stabilisation and stagnation are completely different things. A dynamic system is still well and truly possible when the size of the whole system is constant. Australia should continue to grow in terms of technological advances, better efficiencies and the like. This sort of growth is good. But the expansion part of growth is not good. This word ‘growth’ really does hold two very different meanings, which are seldom differentiated.

“…those nations in the past who have stood still against the ravages of time always succumbed to more virile expanding nations.”

Interesting comment. Please see the link in my last post

Wood, Coal, Oil, Nuclear. That's how our energy consumption should have progressed. Instead we stopped at the Coal/Oil crossover point.

The scale of consumption is always going to increase. Societies depend on energy to survive and its an upwardly spiralling graph. Nothing wrong with that so long as we keep everything in balance. So far we haven't done so. It's no good telling consumers to stop wasting energy and expect a turn down in energy use as a result. Technology is taking up an increasing part of our lives. Today most families have a computer or several computers. Microwaves have nearly made ovens redundant. This trend is never going to reverse. Efficient use of energy might but that's easily countered by more gizmo's in the home.

I believe humanity should strive to find a technological solution to such growing pains and continue to expand. We have an entire universe out there awaiting us with challenges we can't even imagine. To diminish our growth is to diminish our potential in the great vast scheme of things. In some other Parallel universe right now we are building fleets of Starships to explore the Galaxy.

There was a time once when we were all about exploration, conquest and colonization. We can now be defined as a civilization that focuses on internal problems that will or can never be completely solved.

A cold shudder or chill goes up my spine looking at old black and white photographs of people, events, machines, inventions, proposals and visionary schemes from the early part of the last century.

To see what could have and should have been is sobering to say the least. That generation of yesteryear believed so firmly in science, technology and the progress of Man in all areas of life, that it is easy to see why they have been called 'The Greatest Generation'. They believed that science (understanding) and technology (application) would lead to a higher standard of living, which it did.

They believed in letting technology solve its own problems. They believed in grand projects of engineering.

“Wood, Coal, Oil, Nuclear. That's how our energy consumption should have progressed. Instead we stopped at the Coal/Oil crossover point.”

We haven’t “stopped”. We are just at a point in the progressive use of energy. Whether the next phase concentrates on renewable sources or nuclear or a combination of these remains to be seen. But I certainly wouldn’t consider nuclear to be an automatic next step in this evolution/progression of energy utilisation.

“The scale of consumption is always going to increase. Societies depend on energy to survive and its an upwardly spiralling graph.”

No no no!! We WILL learn, one way or another, that the scale of human operations just cannot keep on increasing…. and that if we let increasing scale take care of itself, we will always find that the mark will be well and truly overstepped and we will have to suffer a strong decline before we come into balance between demand and supply capability.

“Nothing wrong with that so long as we keep everything in balance.”

Wayne, consumption that is “always going to increase” is completely at odds with “balance”.

Yes we can probably continue to have an increase in growth in terms of technological advances for perhaps centuries to come. But we certainly cannot have consumption that is always going to increase. In fact, advances technology are supposed to decrease or at least stabilise our overall consumption of stressed or yet to be stressed finite resources, and of potentially infinite resources that are being depleted due to overconsumption.

“I believe humanity should strive to find a technological solution to such growing pains and continue to expand.”

Why? Why do you want us to continue to expand? Wouldn’t it be much better to stop expanding and live within our means? Isn’t the whole purpose of finding technological solutions to improve our lives, rather than facilitate unending expansion?

No energy source is ever completely shelved or ignored. I was speaking in broad terms.

Nuclear is the next step. Look at events globally. Asia is aggressively pursuing new plants. Europe is issuing new licenses. Africa has a new pebble bed design. Russia is producing floating reactors to supply remote regions. America and Britain are committed. The majority of Canadian and French citizens love it. The nuclear renaissance has arrived.

Our ancestors didn't worry about population and consumption. They realised that without a vibrant and strong population other countries would eat them alive. Nothing has changed. A third world war would wipe out billions of people. The only certain thing is this world is change. Planning for a stable future is naive.

Increasing consumption and balance may seem at odds but then life is full of such contradictions. You have to factor in the unpredictable.

Worrying about Uranium resources running out in thousands of years is pointless. The universe is full of energy sources. Our current energy crisis requires action..

Science is based on the truth. It is merely a tool for advancing and perpetuating our species. I believe it is our duty to reach out and explore this universe we inhabit. The Aboriginals once had a similar secular view of the universe as you.

Refusing to seriously entertain the value of anything beyond the horizon. From a scientific perspective it was a perfectly justifiable attitude. There was no evidence to suggest that anything of any consequence existed outside of Australia. Then strange ships arrived and aggressively colonised this land.

I firmly believe that we are not alone in this universe. Other spacefaring species not unlike ourselves already be colonising this Galaxy.

Many people regard our ancestors from the Chinese to the Aztecs as foolish. Why didn't they realize external threats must exist? Yet how are we any different? Eventually we will come into contact with somebody as clever and vicious as ourselves and I believe such an encounter will be devastating if we are not strong enough to demand respect. Just my opinion.