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 > General Discussion > Emission reduction not possible without nuclear - recognition by senior Labor.

Emission reduction not possible without nuclear - recognition by senior Labor.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Nairbe,

The target is to reduce consumption to 5% below 2000 levels by 2020.

In this time the population will have grown 35%, and power demand by about 60%.

This will require a 40% cut in power usage for the same economic activity, and about the same per capita.

Wind and solar can take us only so far without base load. Otherwise we are going to reach 2020 with a positive emission growth.

Nuclear is the safest electricity generation source, and the cheapest low emission source by far.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 2 December 2010 3:56:00 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
We will , we must have Nuclear power.
AJ after Julia it may be introduced by Labor but it will come.
A GREAT MAN, has pointed out if this country got its power from Nuclear we would not only do much to reduce our own emissions, but play a very big roll in reducing the worlds.
True conservation, true emissions reductions, seem remote from greens thoughts.
And JG armed with her ex Latham close support in the team seems intent on not letting debate take place.
A note to my Labor mates, while I could refrain from saying what I think.
Doing so will not change the reality,Julia is not impressing middle Australia.
I under stand the alternative.
For that very reason,and fear I say again distance our selves from greens false conservation, Bob Carr gave this country more than the greens ever did, we can too.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 3 December 2010 4:17:02 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
Shadow Minister,
I reiterate what i said the first time. We will grow our population because we need the growth to drive an economy based in selfish indulgence. The way we go at it i would recon 60% is conservative.
Yes nuclear is during energy production clean and efficient, but what do you do with a waste product so toxic it will remain so longer than the history of modern society. We already don't have a clue about the stability of the environment. Also cost is way off the chart at this time so if we all must pay so much more then why not simply use less ask for what we need not what we want and forget 35% population growth as this is a sure fire way to put the coffin nails into this countries ecology.
AH? that's right, the right in this country could not care about that, it's all profit profit profit and when there is nothing left we will blame someone else. It was all an islamic conspiracy right, or was it those wacky Green communists. Most important is that we don't take responsibility ourselves.
Posted by nairbe, Friday, 3 December 2010 5:58:32 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
We need nuclear power and we need to economise on our use of oil, gas
and coal. Now that the IEA has officially announced that peak oil is
in history, albeit recent history (2006), and that the true position of
coal is now known we should stop export of natural gas and coal.

The Chinese would not be happy, but tough, it will be everyone for themselves.
Nuclear will give us perhaps a 20 to 50 year period to make the change
over to whatever works out best before peak uranium.
Some time in the future will have to ban the export of uranium.

The complicating factor is population, we are in the position that we
simply cannot cope with a major increase in population and a
transition to some other energy source at the same time.
Increasing population means a large demand on energy because of
housing construction, work place construction, transport etc etc.
While all that goes on we would have to be economising on energy use.
The two requirements are incompatible.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 3 December 2010 6:55:31 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
Nairbe,

The issue of waste is a horse that the Greens flog continually based on technology from 60s and 70s systems.

The reality is that with modern reactors and reprocessing is that spent fuel can be cleaned up, re enriched and re used almost ad infinitum, leaving only a tiny fraction of the waste with a much lower level of radioactivity.

Compared to the vast quantities of ash (containing low level radioactivity, and heavy metals) this is a far lower environmental threat.

Even the government's productivity commission recognises that even with massive improvements in renewable technology, the per unit cost of wind (the lowest cost renewable) will be about the same as nuclear. Which does not include the cost of energy storage such as liquid salt.

Nuclear is the only viable low GHG base load.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 3 December 2010 9:22:40 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
Shadow Minister; I fear that nothing will happen until the lights go out.
Then they will want nuclear power the next day.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 3 December 2010 9:48:58 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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