Dickie: My original post was based on natural gas being abundantly available and reasonably cheap, and reasonably low carbon pollutant. So why, do we not use a lot more of it, to power electrical power stations?

I still don’t have that answer.

Nor I, Thebull. Methinks it has something to do with our "Masters" ulterior motives.

By the way, bull, Esperance in WA has had windpower for some time. About 16,000 population - unsure how many turbines which supports a gas supply of energy and supplying 22% of wind energy for that coastal town.

I've yet to hear of any objections to the turbines - not even during the public assessment period. Apparently housing development occurred near the turbines after installation and the real estate prices have increased, similar to that in other sections of Esperance.

I suspect there are a lot of negative myths surrounding wind turbines, however, I wonder why we are not considering off-shore windpower (like Germany) where there would be minimal impact on community amenities and few negative cosmetic effects.

The reason that gas comes second to coal is because gas is more readily converted to liquid fuel than coal. Unless biofuel technology advances greatly, liquid fuels derived from coal and natural gas will be the most viable alternatives. The GHG emissions are a point of contention, with recent NREL research suggesting twice the emissions for fuel synthesised from coal than from oil derived fuels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process

I am curious why thebull wants to go nuclear. Perseus spoke of the potential for technological advances to solve problems quickly and at much lower cost, comparing computing dinosaurs with modern $1000 laptops, and citing the analogy as a good reason for inaction on climate change. So why not use similar reasoning for the nuclear option? Generation IV nuclear reactors are scheduled for testing between 2010 and 2030.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip77.htm

Has anyone else noticed how some are so keen to have global warming analysed to the nth degree, then still call for further evidence before taking any action, yet seem childishly keen to have Australia dotted with CSIRAC's when that $1000 laptop could be so close at hand?

“I fail to see the logic here.”

Freediver I explained myself in the paragraph following that statement.

“Solving global warming within one generation will not necessarily lead to continued economic growth - most economists predict a slight decline in economic growth.”

Most economists predict a slight decline in the rate of growth freediver. So they are predicting a continuation of economic growth.

“It isn't based on that perception at all.”

Really? I wonder what Howard or Costello or Rudd or Iemma or Bracks or Beatty thing of that? All of these illustrious leaders would have no qualms at all about stacking in more people if there was any chance at all of them being supported by the current infrastructure or resource and service provision. Just look at the water situation in our cities, or the health debacle in Queensland. Neither of these have even slightly slowed the rate of population growth into affected areas.

“If that did happen, things could get much worse, very quickly.”

Fair enough. I wouldn’t really argue that increased profligacy is a good thing.

“You are giving me mixed messages I think.”

Well I certainly don’t understand that.

dickie,
further up you compared coal facility pollution vs uranium facility pollution and have concluded that uranium mining produces double that of coal.
Is it not possible that the 3 mine policy means these mines are big, certainly in relation to the "average" coal mine. How about you compare to three equivalent sized coal mines.

In denouncing the green credentials of nuclear through your conclusion, have you taken into account the amount of power obtained per kilo of waste from both coal and Uranium. Maybe Uranium mines potentialy produce 3x power for 2x waste(if 2x is actually the case). Still would be of net environmental benefit.

I'll bite Fester

How will Generation 1V nuke reactors reduce GHG emissions?

Are they the reactors being designed to separate the plutonium substance, thereby safeguarding against nuclear terrorism?

If so, it still doesn't address the issue of the very pollutant operations of uranium mining.

Mining of uranium emits huge amounts of carbon based pollutants and radioactive substances such as radium-226 (1622 years half-life) and its daughter product of radon 222.

All carbon based fossil fuel pollutants are released from the mining of uranium.

And we haven't even addressed the massive emissions from the remaining metal ore industry.

Given there is a lag of some 80 years (debatable) for atmospheric CO2's damage to become apparent, we need to reduce emissions now, not increase them, wouldn't you agree?