Dear ttbn,

We need to look at all sides of this issue
including the potentially complex environmental
impacts of continuing the burning of coal deposits to generate
energy. The use of a resource cannot be considered
in isolation from its potentially complex
environmental impacts.

The burning of coal produces sulfur and carbon dioxide,
and the more coal we burn, the more we pollute the
atmosphere. The sulfur helps form acid rain, which has
a drastic effect on another resource, forests.

We need trees for housing. We will have to rely for the
foreseeable future on whatever timberland can survive
increasing acid rain over the next decades.

We need to look at the potential of other energy sources
such as wind, and sunlight. However, admittedly -
they still appear after years of intensive research
to be either too inefficient or uneconomic for large-scale
use at present.

That does not mean of course that we should stop investigating
their potential. Reading quite a few websites on wind farms
in Australia the general consensus seems to be that
Australia has a huge potential for wind farm development
but if that potential is to be developed we're told that state
governments must take a more pro active part.

The fossil-fuel lobby apparently has a strong hold over
our state governments which according to the author
of the cite given earlier -
seem to be "under the thumb" of the coal mines,
and the development of
renewals is suffering because of this. Australia does
have the natural resources to be a world leader in
wind and solar but is in fact trailing a long way behind
countries like Germany and Denmark.

The same author also tells us that the greatest obstacle
to the development of windpower and sustainable power in
general is the lack of high-capacity electricity transmission
lines where they are needed, and state governments are
showing little willingness to build them.

So as stated earlier Australia does have a huge potential for
wind farm development but if that potential is to be
developed state governments must take a more pro-active part.

Foxy,

Wind and sunlight will never be reliable sources of power. They can only be adjuncts to coal. So, why not go straight to nuclear, which we also have plenty of. That is the only way to go if the environment is really as badly affected as some claim it is. Of course, the problem there is that the environmentalists don't want nuclear. Inside this decade, when they discover the costs of refurbishing turbines, they might not have a choice. And, I believe, it takes something like 15 years to get one nuclear plant started up. I should be well and truly passed on by then, and I'll miss seeing what eventually happens, but I will not have to worry about it.

Solar power is more worthy of persevering with, if the battery storage can be perfected, but I think our only real options are coal or nuclear.

A fool can ask questions that a wise person finds hard to answer.

For example on another thread, I asked more expert contributors about the production of CO2 in the production of wind-power, i.e. in the construction and maintenance of wind-farms, from digging up the iron ore and cement inputs, producing all the components, and of all the special bits of the turbines, maintenance over the life of a wind-tower, AND one other factor which seems to be completely ignored:

* renewable energy sources are subsidised. How does that subsidy come about ? From government revenue. How is that generated, mainly ? From taxes, from taxable incomes. How is much of that income generated ? From the production of goods and services. Using what as their energy sources ? Electricity, usually generated from non-renewable sources. Which produces how much CO2 ?

So, including all those inputs, how much CO2 is produced over the life of a wind-farm ?

No fudging now :)

Joe

Just to add some bits: I'm not suggesting that, if any CO2 whatever is produced in the life-cycle of a wind-farm, then they should be scrapped. No, if the net production of CO2 is positive, but not appreciable, then go for it. But don't expect it to be price-comparable with non-renewables for a while yet.

As well as that, I do think wind-towers are beautiful: if restaurants were built near them, I would be happy to watch them for hours.

As for infra-sound, that may be another issue entirely: I have a friend who lives at Waterloo here in SA, I'll ask him about it next time I see him.

Joe

Dear ttbn,

I'm a bit nervous about nuclear.

I recall reading that in the years immediately
after World War II, nuclear power was seen as the
energy resource of the future - one that would
provide electricity "too cheap to meter."

Today, nuclear reactors are seen by some as
monuments to a god that failed. There are nuclear
plants in many countries, but many of them are
managerial, financial or engineering diasasters.

The principal public fear is that a "meltdown"
at a nuclear reactor could release a plume of
deadly radiation into the atmosphere, perhaps
before people in surrounding communities could be
warned and evacuated. Despite consistent assurances
from the industry that nuclear reactors are safe,
opinion polls show that the public is unconvinced -
especially since the serious nuclear accidents in
places like Chernobyl (Actually, a nuclear accident
of much greater magnitude occurred near Kyshtym in
Russia in 1957, spreading radioactive
debris over a wide area which is now believed to be
uninhabitable for centuries. The full story of the
disaster has never been told, but the names of of about
50 small towns in the region have disappeared from
Russian maps, and an elaborate system of canals
have been built presumably to carry rivers and other water
systems around the contaminated area).

Nuclear reactors produce notoriously hazardous wastes.
What is needed is a place that will safely contain the waste
for at least 10,000 years, which is long enough for most of
it to decay. The location of such a site is a ticklish
political problem, for the obvious reason that people are
generally unenthused about the prospect of having a radioactive
dump in their own neighbourhood.

The disposal problem seems to be one that has no acceptable
technological fix.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

In the modern industrialised world, we often feel
insulated from nature and confident that our
technology can give us mastery over the natural
environment. We forget all too easily that we too
are animals, ultimately as dependent on the
environment for our survival as any other species.

After decades of carelessly dumping noxious gases
and particulates into the atmosphere, most of the
industrialised societies are now enforcing clear-air
standards, and air-quality in these societies is
generally much better than at any time in the past.
In the less developed countries there are few controls
on air pollution, and as these nations industrialise,
they are steadily increasing the sum total of
planetary pollution.

We're at the early stages of investing in renewable
technologies. Many problems need to be sorted out.
However, we do need to make a start. Of course this is
politically difficult for the economic interests
behind "smokestack" industries are a powerful political
lobby that is reluctant to commit the necessary resources
to the task.

However, the planet has a finite amount of resources and it
can tolerate only a limited amount of pollution.
As I've stated many times in the past on this forum -
if world population continues to grow rapidly, if
industrialisation spreads around the world and if pollution and
resource depletion continues at an increasing rate -
and all these things happen - human society one way or another
will be in for sweeping massive changes.