I appreciate posters' awareness of technologies which could reduce our emissions considerably.

What concerns me most is the federal and state government's reliance on the big polluters to voluntarily install pollution prevention control.

Governments' reluctance to enforce regulations on all large industrial polluters, to mitigate hazardous emissions is the biggest single problem we have in addressing the degradation of our environment.

A simplified example follows: (Source - www.npi.gov.au)

1. WMC Resources Ltd - Kalgoorlie Nickel Smelter

2005-2006: SO2 emissions = 30,000,000 kgs

Pollution prevention control installed:

a) Electro precipitator
b) Fabric filter
c) Scrubber
d) Cyclone
e) Selective Catalytic Reduction

2. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Gidgi Roaster

2005-2006: SO2 emissions = 180,000,000 kgs

Pollution Prevention Control installed:

NIL

Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines is owned by Barrack/Newmont

One could hardly imagine they are unable to meet the costs of installing a scrubber to mitigate their pollution.

I believe many companies are acting irresponsibly to obtain maximum profits.

This is an issue which the federal and state governments remain silent on and refuse to address - an issue which is drastically elevating the release of hazardous eco-destructive chemicals.

If governments made pollution prevention control mandatory, massive reductions in atmospheric pollution would follow.

This would give Australia a temporary reprieve and more time to research renewable energies.

Why should responsible resource companies meet the costs of pollution mitigation whilst others refuse to?

Oh.....silly me. I forgot! "It's the economy stoopid!"

Bugsy, unlevelled wind power is unsuitable for providing power during peak times because you cannot rely on its being available. In fact, it's really unsuitable for providing power at any time for exactly the same reason.

Solar is even less useful, except during heat waves, because the peak loads occur at times when solar radiation is either low, or completely absent.

Both solar and wind have high capital costs per watt (in the case of solar, very high). These costs significantly exceed those of nuclear power plants, even if proper provision is made for decommissioning and waste storage. People talk about the high capital costs of a typical nuclear plant, but they overlook (sometimes wilfully, IMHO) the fact that such a plant also generates a lot of electricity.

The cost of solar power might come down with a breakthrough in technology, but we can't rely on that. It will not come down through economies of scale, because we've already had those.

Wind power generation just involves a lot of machinery, and in my view is likely to remain expensive for ever.

Even Hot Rocks, on the proponents' own cost estimates are more expensive per watt than nuclear. The same applies to another concept known as the Solar Tower.

The other renewables are small scale systems with no evidence that they can be scaled up.

So it doesn't matter how much people like the idea of 'green' power (which in this context means non nuclear green power), those tasked with engineering a green power system will tell you that they simply cannot build such a system with the technologies that currently exist, or are in reasonable prospect, unless people are willing to pay multiples of the current electricity price. Nor can they even make major inroads on the existing power usage using 'green' power.

Those who demand green power are crying for the moon.

Sylvia.

Hindsight is always 20-20. No point kicking yourself when your crystal ball fails you.

Premier Carpenter (WA) has just issued a small grant to an inventor to commercialise a modular roof-top wind turbine to take advantage of the daily "Fremantle Doctor" sea breeze, though it can also utilise variable urban winds.

We are advised there are no visible blades, it's small, quiet and relatively cheap.

The modular need only connect 5 additional units to supply all household energy requirements.

So it's a "wait and see" for the outcome to this latest WA innovation.

Dear Bugsy and Dickie
What become of Ralph Troublemaker ?
He realised that he what he was asserting is far too dangerous and that he had concern for his family.
But what did he do he accused Dickie as being insulting where was Dickie insulting.
Ralph Troublemaker started the debate then when the umpire ruled him out he took his ball, bat and stumps home with him so that nobody else could play. It was like tipping the Monopoly board upside down when the other play wouldn't sell you Mayfair. It has all gone quiet now on the Western Front. This is why all anti nuclear activists must continue to place the facts in front of the electorate. The Nuclear Industry have all the money at their disposal to pay their Politicians handsome pay packets to promote Nuclear. It is frightening what power they have and the control they have over the media and Politicians. The biggest farce was the task force Chaired by Ziggy their conclusions were inevitable. We will be a lot safer and a lot richer if we as a people do exactly the opposite of what that Committee recommended. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament struggle has to continue until we convince the people of Australia that Nuclear Power is much more of a danger to mankind than Global Warming those that created Global Warming now want to destroy this planet entirely with Nuclear Bombs.

How nice! I didn't realize that I would be missed. Yes, you scared me off. I'm still shaking :-)

Good luck ! !

Ralph@nucleargreen.org