(ContinuedFromAbove (F@#c* these stupid OLO limits))

The more difficult and complex the process, the more energy must necessarily be wasted at each step.

And without these losses necessarily entailed in the capturing and storing of energy in the more highly concentrated forms, I don't see how the manufacturing of solar panels or wind power generators can be achieved from solar and wind power alone.

So either we manufacture them with energy from fossil fuels or we divert a huge proportion of the energy captured by these devices into manufacturing more of these devices.

The former is unsustainable in the longer term, whilst if we adopt the latter approach it is not entirely clear to me that much energy, if any energy at all, wil be left over.

This could mean that we simply have to find ways to run our civilisation with much less energy than the quantities that we have become used to in the last two hundred years. It is not even clear to me if, at that, we can sustain the world's current population of 6.5 billion.

---

Freediver, you wrote: "It would be very easy for emissions reductions to outpace population growth by a factor of at least two on an indefinite basis."

That would seem to be extremely optimistic, even for any significant finite period of time, let alone into the indefinite future.

At least we seem to be in agreement in regard to most other questions including, in spite of the above statement, opposition to population growth.

Dickie

My guess is that your nuclear GHG emission estimate comes from flawed research.(Unfortunately dodgy research often gets periodically resurrected if it suits someones agenda.) A summary of nuclear GHG emissions can be found here:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/co2&nfc.htm

This EROI website compares photovoltaics(2-10) favourably with coal(9), so Daggett's concerns may be unfounded:

http://www.eroei.com/content/view/55/54/

The following site outlines the large number of PV technologies being developed, and suggests PV EROI's of up to 30:

http://libraryoflibrary.com/E_n_c_p_d_Solar_cell.html

Alternative energy sources wont be developed solely on the basis of satisfying an agenda. They will be developed on the basis of what works well.

Fester

Your claim that my figures are dodgy reveals a poster who is rather presumptious and far too biased to access the officially documented emissions' reports to confirm that my figures are accurate.

To quote an agency such as the World Nuclear Association is hardly credible since blind Fred knows what WNA's agenda is. In addition, your thread referred only to methane and failed to mention the very damaging results of CO, NOx,PM,VOC which also includes large emissions of PAHs and we haven't yet touched on the heavy metals and radioactive gases contained in the mining of uranium.

Atmospheric CO also elevates methane and ozone before converting to CO2. I would suggest that your recommended paper is flawed and extremely selective.

Therefore, I shall again supply you with the Australian federal government's pollutant emissions website - www.npi.gov.au.

If you remain convinced that the figures are dodgy then I suggest you take that up with Mr Switkowski.

I have noticed that there is some discussion about some future energy sources but how about widen the view.

come up with a good list and then lets see.
Green tax
carbon tax

lets just tax the people out of existance is the greens plans.

Lets solve the problem with good solutions.

If you cannot find a good solution for energy replacement then look harder.

We have been told how bad nuclear is you know chernobel close enough
but as i saw on a doco last night have found that in terms of hiroshima it was not all bad news.
I know this will hit hard with those greens but we should not discount just because of an accident.

Lets really look to solve this and put up a real solution that is feasable and will work well.

I am quite happy for you all send info to me about different sources.
so what have you to loss, nothing.
If i wasnt seriously interested in this and many issues i would not bother asking for you to email, the question is how serious are you.

email: swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Dickie

Could you give a specific link to back up your claims please? It might also help if you quantify things. For example, you might like to quote sources which quantify the emissions from various types of power generation. For example, this link from the University of Wollongong gives a very favourable comparison of nuclear with coal, and quotes reseach that the total radiation from nuclear is less than one third that of coal.

http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/reactors_nuc_v_coal.html

I think it better to let the data speak for you. Finding viable solutions is more important than personal agendas.

Fester

My figures were not a comparison between nuclear reactor emissions and the coal industry, as you well know.

Once again, you fail to make any sense. Your recommended thread compares nuclear reactor emissions to hydro-electric, coal, gas, biomass and solar.

How interesting that the good professor's emissions report (compliments of the Nuclear Energy Institute), completely failed to include the emissions of CO2, heavy metals and radioactive substances, from uranium mining in relation to the whole nuclear energy cycle. However, he was quick to point out the radioactive emissions from the coal industry.

Your insistence in attacking the man has grown rather tedious. You clearly are not capable of accessing the NPI website, or you have and are not capable of understanding the science of atmospheric carbon-based chemicals.

As well, you appear to be under the illusion that I support the mining of coal!?

Your inane sophistry reveals that you haven't the foggiest idea of what I am talking about and since you refuse to take your hand off it, I shall not waste my valuable time in responding to your posts in the future.