Hi Butch & HasBeen,

Am I right in suggesting that not only are solar and wind power generation systems more expensive, but they also produce more CO2 in their manufacture and maintenance than they 'save'. i.e. less CO2 would be produced in the world if solar and wind power systems were not manufactured at all ?

As for nuclear power, have any generators built in the last twenty years had any major problems, spewing radioactivity into the atmosphere, etc. ? And how many generations of nuclear technology are we on from twenty years ago ?

Of course, nobody in their right mind should build nuclear power plants anywhere near fault lines, but - away from mountain ranges - how much of Australia is free of fault lines, and has been for billions of years, i.e. forever ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hasbeen, rehctub and Loudmouth,

It was known throughout the 20th century that solar panels were net energy sinks. But technology has improved since then, and they now require a lot less energy to manufacture. Even in northern Europe you can expect them to generate several times as much energy as it took to make them.

If one university study has concluded that everyone else has got their figures wrong, I'd like to see why. But I'm very skeptical of that claim, having previously seen studies which tried to convert non energy costs (such as insurance) into an energy equivalent in order to make renewable energy look worse.

As for wind turbines, nobody nowadays seriously claims they produce more CO2 in their manufacture and maintenance than they 'save'. It's not even in the same order of magnitude.

"...having previously seen studies which tried to convert non energy costs (such as insurance) into an energy equivalent in order to make renewable energy look worse."

Yes, those studies show solar with storage would barely break even on an EROIE basis, and advancement in the technology would not advance the situation greatly. Doing the same calculation for nuclear leaves it with EROEI to burn.

Of course, EROEI is not the whole story, but it does tell us that solar requires preposterously massive infrastructure including, backup storage and fossil-fueled backup (to meet residual, inevitable intermittency problems) to meet current electricity and transport needs (let alone growth). That cost will obliterate the cost of the nuclear option.

Re growth, that is met by building even more solar infrastructure, whereas nuclear can be built with little extra cost to ramp up as needed.

All we have to do is get over the unreasonable fear of radiation.

We've been here before and I'm going back to my Weeties. Keep dreaming, Aidan, that beautiful world will always be just over the horizon, while we need action now.

When people talk about advancement, nature is never or virtually mentioned anymore, because there is no place for it now, in terms of human living. There are some benefits like water, air and a surface to walk on, soil and elements like trees for example.

But most of this is declining, so any living benefits are small, to non existent. A belief in something (more spiritual, is fine), but it realistically can only go so far, in terms of day to day living.

In terms of human driven advancement, one medication I take, took three years (to change) in terms of its use and purpose and that was very slow.

So if there is going to be any change, it has to be substantial, but the majority of people (in countries like Australia) won't accept that, so relying on nature to survive on, isn't viable, ethical or fair.

The small elements of nature that are left will pay the price for that. Technology now is the only real option in that context.

NathanJ, any number of studies have found the solid fact that there are more trees in Oz today, than were growing here at first settlement.

In many areas where the first explorers found a savannah lightly treed, as developed by aboriginal fire stick hunting methods, today is impenetrable garbage scrub under a thick covering of trees.

Much country once developed to farming & grazing has been allowed to go to similar useless scrub.

Perhaps you lack of mobility leads you to false impressions. I have sailed much of the east coast of Oz. I could show you many stretches of coast of over 100 kilometres where the only evidence of man is the odd automated lighthouse, & an occasional boat. We have so much useless bush that statements like yours are laughable.

Has been: Perhaps you lack of mobility leads you to false impressions. I have sailed much of the east coast of Oz. I could show you many stretches of coast of over 100 kilometres where the only evidence of man is the odd automated lighthouse, & an occasional boat. We have so much useless bush that statements like yours are laughable.

Yep that is so true. There are more Kangaroo's & Emu's here too. They were even in Plague proportions in Western Australia in the 1930's they called in the Army to shoot them. It was a failure I'm told. Known as the Emu Wars.