SM,

I'm back. I found the reference that I cited earlier and I'm
amazed at your dismissive attitude - especially
as an engineer you should be more forward thinking and up
for innovation and new ideas. What was being suggested
was future projections - for population centers in 20 years time. What to aim for in the future. And that at least to me is
not something to dismiss so easily. Different strokes
for different folks though...

You overlooked that fact that in that article - a 2009
Stanford University study ranked energy systems
according to their impacts on global warming,
pollution, water supply, land use, wildlife and other concerns.
"The cost of generating and
transmitting power would be less than the projected cost
per kilowatt-hour for fossil fuels and nuclear power."

According to the study - "the very best options were
wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and hydroelectirc power -
all of which are driven by wind, water or sunlight.
Nuclear power, coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were
all poorer options as were oil and natural gas."

However, as the article pointed out - "it seems that
the lack of political will loom as the biggest obstacle..."

That's always the way though. Sadly.

I think, the thing understated here, about Nuclear Power, beyond incompetence through greed Pelican, (and that is a massive worry), is that the problem of disposal of the waste product associated with nuclear power generation, is endowed, or assigned (if you like), too future generations to deal with. Long after the benefits are all used up, and gone. Whether it be 9 or 30 years.

Stating benefits of 10 times that in support of Nuclear , is the closest thing to an untruth that I have read SM, in this post. As usual you have an agenda and Pshaw to the facts.

Thank you Pelican for your reasonable and well put positions.

Thankfully today, the Independents (particularly Windsor) have drawn timely attention to the CSG industry. I believe CSG is posing a greater threat to the environment than even Nuclear energy.

With CSG you get the pollution and it's immediate effects upon the eco system as you go !.
You've had the energy, but now the eco-system is unusable.

It's a bit like privatising your essential services for a quick buck, only this time the pawn is the ecology.

"Something that was never "theirs" (the miners), or ours to begin with".

Lexi,

From what I could see the article was probably written for the magazine on request, probably framed as "how would the world reach zero emissions by 2030) and given the time span, has some useful information, but some glaring omissions which he acknowledges. I don't imagine that this was submitted as a serious proposal rather as a thought bubble.

For example he comes up with a cost of renewable generation at $100 trillion excluding transmission. Which is kind of like looking at the cost of rail transport excluding the rails.

For large power systems, the cost of transmission is at least equal to the cost of building the generation. For renewables, with smaller and more distant generation (to which he refers) the estimate is probably close to double the cost of generation, but I will be generous and say 1.5x as there can be some re use of existing infrastructure.

Based on this, the cost of totally replacing the present generation in Australia (with base load) would be greater than $5 trillion. Or 5 years GDP. Considering that an additional $800m would rank us with Italy or Spain as far as indebtedness, I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Engineers are more about just generating ideas, the most important part of engineering is to critically evaluate them against cost and ease of implementation. The greens are great at generating thought bubbles not realizing that 99% of them have already been thought of and discarded.

Nuclear plants can be build directly next to existing coal generation plants and use the existing infrastructure, and phase out the coal plants as the Nukes come on line.

SM,

Thank You for such a prompt reply. While I respect your opinion
I still feel strongly that nuclear is not the answer. There are too
many risks involved and the costs of generating and transmitting
power are high.

Over the centuries, our technological
innovations have had greater potential for environmental damage.
Preindustrial societies drew their energy directly from such
natural resources as wind and water. Early industrial societies
utilised indirect energy - for example, burning coal to
produce heat to make steam to drive an engine.

In the modern world we rely extensively on electricity derived
from even more sophisticated sources, such as nuclear reactors.
Each advance yields greater resources of energy,
but it does so at greater risk.
For example, the twin nuclear reactors that were
built in Diablo Canyon, California were built almost directly
on top of an earthquake fracture line, and due to a mixup in
the blueprints, their structural supports were inadvertently
installed back to front.

Therefore the point that I am making is that no matter how
sophisticated or technically advanced an engineering system
may be inevitably by its very nature - no matter how efficiently
it may be maintained - eventually it will wear out and stop functioning.
Or, have a major breakdown
- resulting in an unmanageable catastrophe -
leaking radiation into the environment
and poisoning large areas of the earth's surface. Not to mention
the toxic waste that is generated and has to be disposed of.

In simple terms - take your motor car. It's grand and beautiful
and functions perfectly - but it does have its inevitable end
and ends up on the scrap heap, unless it is involved in an
accident and kills people. So, too a nuclear plant is a "motor
car" on a gigantic scale - except we don't want to accept that
premise.

At least to me, there is no logical reasoning to promote nuclear
when safer alternatives are available.

thinker2
It is always heartening there are people like you and Lexi who will take a moment for pause on nuclear issues. It is important to seek information from various sources before digesting what government and corporate interests dish out as 'truth'.

The Occupy movement is also testament to the fact that there is an end-time to how much people will put up with in terms of corruption of the democratic process and when governments no longer act in the interests of citizens. Nuclear testing proved to be equally unpopular when it was revealed that US citizens were being exposed to the ill-effects of radiation poisoning when testing took place on US soil without consultation and warning. These actions saw the rise of organisations like Greenpeace. The French also bowed to pressure (to the bleedin' obvious) after Moruroa Atoll.

I suspect if the future sees a new push for nuclear power there will be the usual 'radical greenie' ad hominem attacks by the nuclear lobby to further business interests. As if the future of the planet and people are insignificant over short term monetary gain by a small elite.

These are the sorts of tactics used against organisations like Wikileaks or towards whistleblowers who are attacked personally or diminished in the lack of a reasonable response to greater transparency. And I reckon there will be little of that in regard to questions about nuclear waste disposal or locations of power stations in disaster prone areas (as Howard planned).

As previously stated, the risks around nuclear are so high as to be beyond the capability of corporations and governments and nuclear is not the ONLY option. We have already seen what happens as the previous PM Mr Rudd openly put jobs over safety in vote buying exercise as revealed in the review on the insulation fiasco. It is just one example of the dangers of political culture and nuclear. A recipe for disaster as Fukishima and other nuclear travesties demonstrate.

Nothing in life comes without risk, but there is miles of difference between perception and reality.

This article from yesterday sums it up:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12912

For instance, more people have died from toothpicks in the last 40 years than nuclear accidents. Safety procedures have improved dramatically, and as air accidents have dropped 10 fold over the last 30 years, nuclear plants are far safer now than 40 or 50 years ago, and are still responsible for the lowest fatality rate of any power generation in the world.

Until renewable energy generation is available at a cost that won't bankrupt the nation the choice will be nuclear or fossil fuel. While Pelican and others claim that there are other alternatives, they cannot actually say what they are.