Again, a rehash of odd statistics. I have looked site Ralph. If it's not an ad, what is it? A few links to some videos (including FOX News, lol) and a bit of a blog that doesn't actually answer much. Tell me, what distinguishes your book from "Nuclear Energy Now" by Alan Herbst and George Hopley?

Sylvia, many other people think that nuclear energy can be teamed up with fuel cells (ok, not exactly working yet, but you get the idea) and a hydrogen economy. Why does this not apply to "intermittent" energy sources? We have a lot of land in this country and much of it gets a good deal of nuclear energy directly from the sun for a good portion of the year, why can we not use it?

But there are many other technologies proposed for thermal exchange with no emissions, why can we not bother with them? New Zealand has had geothermal power for quite a while.

All technologies have their pros and cons. It's how we work them out that makes the difference. Nuclear energy has had strict safety protocols imposed on it precisely because it is a high-risk technology. Thats also why you are more likely to die in a car than a plane. But planes don't leave radioactive contaminants when they crash, you can use an airport after one takes dive. These safety protocols will fail sometime, just like with any other technology and the proliferation of plants, mines and waste dumps will only increase the risk of failure. Thats a reality, not a glass half-empty attitude. When it does fail, will we be able to live near it? How many failures will we be able to live with?

As for: "Sorry we can't meet face to face. I would be interesting."

I doubt that also.

Did I hear that Dr Pram Chopra had to leave the country because he couldn't get industry funds for his innovative geothermal hot rock technology?

This was a sad read
>http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s238846.htm<

I suspect that if nuclear plants are built in Aus they will certainly not be built by Aus companies. Under Howard we exist as a land raped for foreign corporations. I believe it takes tremendous energy just to build a nuclear reactor. Is this so?

Are you on a pundit payola for the nuclear industry, Trouble?

Achenne1

The most expensive place to build a nuclear power plant today is the U.S. That's because the "greens" have done everything possible to block, start, or even to agree to build any nuclear plant. We are trying now, to rid the process of all of the duplicative and unnecessary restrictions that are currently placed on nuclear plants here.

You can build the identical plant in France for about one third (maybe less) of the cost in the U.S. or, probably Australia. That has to stop.

It takes no more power (possibly less) to build a coal or natural gas power plant than a nuclear plant wherever it's built.

And NO, I'm not a paid "pundit" for the nuclear industry, nor would I consider becoming one. Nuclear Green, Inc. is taking on the fight as a public service...and, ultimately, we will win ! ! We have to win ! !

Ralph

Bugsy,

Fuel cells are not particularly efficient. This is not so important where they are competing with internal combustion engines that burn an expensive fuel, but is a significant problem if they are being used to balance the generation from an intermittent power source.

If significant part of the energy generated by a wind-farm is wasted in the power levelling system, then that requires a correspondingly larger wind farm for a given average power output.

Energy from wind farms is already expensive compared with coal or gas generation, without the extra impost of requiring a larger capacity. In addition, the capital costs of the storage system further increase the cost of the energy.

At the end of the day, wind power can be levelled if money is no object, but the consumer is going to be reluctant to pay multiples of the current price merely to avoid nuclear. Once the Australian public understands that it can't have its cake and eat it, Australia will go nuclear.

As for geothermal, you can't just up and build a geothermal plant wherever you feel like. The geology has to be suitable. In parts of NZ it is. In Australia it is not (other than Hot Rock, which is a rather different concept).

Hot rock technology is being developed in Australia, but it is not going to be cheap, and it has its own scalability issues. While the hot rock resource is huge, it is not all equally usable. Needless to say, the pilot plants are being built at the most suitable place.

Mr Lutens does not seem convinced of their safety either. Of course we can always bury the world's nuclear waste on Aboriginal land in the NT. That could not possibly be why Halliburton built the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. That was just my pananoia, that made me think that.

>http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html<

I am having some difficulty remaining quiet over troublemaker's constant lies and deception:

On 2/7,on this thread, he states:

"441 nuclear power plants without a single accident or fatality - speaks volumes to the safety of nuclear power."

Shame on you Troublemaker!

Japan's nuclear industry has incurred accidents during '95, 97, 98,99, 02. In 2004, at the Mihama plant in Japan, 4 workers were killed and 7 injured.

Only on 6/6/07 on OLO "Dogma and Delusion over Renewables", did I advise posters (including Troublemaker) of the prosecution in the UK in October 2006, over Sellafield's "accidental" release of 160 kgs plutonium, 20 tonnes of uranium and 83,000 tonnes of "acids."

Other accidents/"events" continue to occur within the US nuclear industry.

Are these termed accidents in your weird calculations, Troublemaker, or just minor events?

Strontium 90 is being found in the teeth of people born in the 80's in the US, equal to those born in the 50's.

Bear in mind there are some 50 nuclear weapons lying on the bottom of the ocean due to the US and the Soviets' military war games. Radiation leaks are continuing from nuclear processes, storage, shipping and disposal, uranium mining, DU artillery, bombs and bombers, subs and ships and from nuclear bomb tests and facilities.

This environment has already created an ideal prognosis for a more radioactive planet!

And how's that Pinocchio nose of yours doin', Troublemaker?