You think Australia has a Nuclear Future

[kiwigeo]

"Please explain a way to move electricity from a power plant to the consumer that doesn’t use copper."

Ummm..............Aluminium? (Wot most HV transmission line cables are made of.) But of course you knew that, didn't you?

Aluminium plants noted for their huge consumption of electricity.

[Rocker]

What we need is for the yanks to get their Shuttle off to the moon and bring back a few tonnes of Helium3. In 1999 the nerds at University of Wisconsin predicted that 40 tons of Helium3 from the moon would fuel their fusion reactor and supply the entire electricity demand for the USA.

woodbe.

Yeah, right.

Rocker

[kiwigeo]

But how can they tax the water that hydrogen is made outa?



Making hydrogen from water requires inputting a significant amount of energy. Its more likely hydrogen for vehicles would be sourced from natural gas.

[bitingmidge]

You are saying here is that everything is going to rosy, except for the boys and girls who can’t afford it.
Isn't that already the case? We just happen to be the lucky 20% or so of the world's population that can afford it.

I'm not sure that running out of copper will impact terribly on a Mongolian yak herder, or an Amazonian native.

Ultimately, everything will get so expensive that only the very rich will be able to afford their IPods. By this time Apple will be out of business (sorry Midge). Ford, Holden et. al. will be out of business. A lot of unemployment here
No need to be sorry, it will happen gradually (unless someone wakes up and elects a government with real guts), and I'm OK, i was educated in a time before electronic calculators, fax machines and photocopiers, so I'll survive thanks. (Except I'll be dead by the time it happens).


The price increases will mean inflation.
Strangely enough, if they are big enough it may not. In order for inflation to occur, there has to be demand for the product. Bankruptcies and unemployment could very well reduce demand on "luxury goods" to the point where recession or most probably depression occurs


Reserve Banks will up interest rates. In most of the western world, people are in hock up to there eyeballs. High interest rates will kill them. Foreclosure city here we come.
Won't that fix the over consumption problem? In hock to their eyeballs is a self inflicted disease brought on by over consumption which in turn is the cause of all this. Those who have been frugal and thrifty, will survive, and there's another notch in Mr Darwin's belt!

The people that thumb their noses at we, the frugal few will suffer!!


What are you saying here, that everything is rosy but we’re in a real trouble now and we should have stopped progressing 20 years ago?
Didn't we???
I find it hard to see evidence of real progress over that time. All we have done is created more ways to consume unnecessary items. Is the fact that we can communicate like this, evidence of technical progress, or a symptom of the decline of our social structure?


P
(Trying to be on Grunt's side, but without the doom and gloom!)

[bitingmidge]

http://www.genpets.com/media/photo01.jpg
The future is here! So you worry about wasted technology? Wasted resources, going insane?

Maybe you need a genpet. (http://www.genpets.com)


Are Genpets Real?
Genpets are living, breathing mammals. Bio-Genica is a Bioengineering Company that has combined, and modified existing DNA to create the Genpets lineup. Genpets are flesh and blood just like any other animal.

So we create doll shaped organisms with certain personality configurations, designed with a lifespan of a mere 12 months. Surely someone is having a lend of us?

And I worry about people driving Falcons!

P
:rolleyes:

[Grunt]

P
(Trying to be on Grunt's side, but without the doom and gloom!)


I use the doom and gloom to try and get people to realise the seriousness of this. Unless we start making changes NOW my version of the future won't be too far off.

Here is a timeline (http://deconsumption.typepad.com/deconsumption/2004/05/background_for_.html)that doesn't seem to far off.

[Grunt]

I had a look at the genpets. Someone is having a lend of us. The gen-pets are never shown outside of there packaging. Real advertising would never show it in the packaging.
Someone has gone to a lot of effort for a joke. No wonder why the world is fricked.

[Daddles]

No wonder why the world is fricked.

And I worry about people who use Apple Macs :D

Richard

[bitingmidge]

No wonder why the world is fricked.
I think that was the point he was trying to make, and he did it particularly well too I reckon.

http://www.brandejs.ca/portfolio5/gp03.php

But you can have your own for $1800.

Cheers,

P
:D

[Andy Mac]

Hey Grunt, I don't think its a 'joke' in the usual sense, its a take, on many levels. The Genpets aren't meant to be considered real, and if viewers do fall for it, the artist has made the point even more forcibly than he intended. We have come to accept that level of technology as not only possible, but also acceptable!?:eek:
Here's another artist, an Australian, doing stuff like this with a take on GM technology:
http://www.patriciapiccinini.net/

Cheers,

[Eddie Jones]

Aluminium plants noted for their huge consumption of electricity.

True, but that has bugger all to do with my post, obvious to anyone with a rough understanding of written English. If you are having trouble, the question was:

"Please explain a way to move electricity from a power plant to the consumer that doesn’t use copper."

I merely pointed out that aluminium, NOT copper is used for HV electrical distribution. Understand now?

[bitingmidge]

I use the doom and gloom to try and get people to realise the seriousness of this. Unless we start making changes NOW my version of the future won't be too far off.
While I happen to agree with you completely, I think the doomsayers actually are a bit of a turn-off. For all the reasons stated previously, they've been at it a long time and don't have many converts.

In the seventies I ran an argument many times with friends out there doing it that their "alternative lifestylers" weren't actually actually alternative lifestyles at all, and I still believe that.

I think that the "mainstream" consumer based lifestyle adopted by 95% of the community is actually the "alternative", so I guess I live on the fringe of the alternative.

Live fast, die young, have a good looking corpse.

P
:cool: :cool: :cool:

[Bodgy]

Live fast, die young, have a good looking corpse.

P
:cool: :cool: :cool:

Too late, Midge!

[Bushmiller]

Just to return to original post for a while and to make a few comments without getting too deep:

The basic law of economics will probably dictate when we seriously consider alternative fuels whether it is for our motor vehicles or the production of electricity. And for that matter when we start to conserve energy.

We consider our petrol expensive in Australia, but where it is expensive, such as continental Europe, the car engines are much smaller than ours.

The same goes for power stations. We have incredibly cheap coal in Australia and lots of it. In excess of 300 years at the current rate of consumption. Ironically, although we don't use it ouselves, we also happen to have the largest individual supply of Uranium, but it too is finite and nowhere near as plentiful: At the proposed levels of consumption about 9 years worth. After that lower grade ores would have to be mined.

The proponents of nuclear power usually choose to ignore the high costs on mining uranium ore and the extremely high cost of building a nuclear power station compared to other types of plant.

Power stations produce around 35% of the world's greenhouse gases. So when we talk about savings, we are talking about savings in this sector only.

Other sources of greenhouse gases are transport, other industries, fires and animal flatulence (although the latter is methane rather than CO2, but still significant, particularly if you are standing alongside). This is not an exhaustive list.

Unfortunately, few people discuss this topic without a vested interest. For example is it a coincidence that Mr Howard comes back from the US sprouting about opening up the nuclear debate? Could it be that he would like to climb further into bed with George W and sell him a little bit of uranium? Is that why he was advocating value-adding the uranium ore by enriching it? Is that why he suggested we embark on a programme to take back the spent waste and store it in Australia?

Everybody has a vested interest or predjudice: Me too.

Nuclear power stations require huge amounts of cooling water for their reactors. This may require them, in Australia at least, to be built near the coastline so they can access sea water which is the only plentiful water on our dry continent. Unfortunately the majority of the population live on or near the coast, so which of you would like to put up your hand for a nuke over the back fence? How far away is safe? Chernobyl is in the Ukraine. Scientists in Sweeden detected excessivie radiation on their clothing and asked questions. Russia wasn't going to say anything.

Building stations out in the desert is not really on because of the lack of water and the transmission losses in conveying the power to populated regions.

Lastly, for the moment, we all know about Chernobyl, which admittedly was a poorly designed BWR (Boiling Water Reactor), but the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 was a PWR (Pressurised Water Reactor), a much better design, in the US and in a populated area. It came closer to a core meltdown than most authorities are prepared to admit. No effects of the radiation leakage have been proven or manifested themselves, but this is the cost of the cleanup.

"The TMI-2 Cleanup

The cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactor system at TMI-2 took nearly 12 years and cost approximately $973 million. The cleanup was uniquely challenging technically and radiologically. Plant surfaces had to be decontaminated. Water used and stored during the cleanup had to be processed. And about 100 tonnes of damaged uranium fuel had to be removed from the reactor vessel -- all without hazard to cleanup workers or the public. A cleanup plan was developed and carried out safely and successfully by a team of more than 1000 skilled workers. It began in August 1979, with the first shipments of accident-generated low-level radiological waste to Richland, Washington. In the cleanup's closing phases, in 1991, final measurements were taken of the fuel remaining in inaccessible parts of the reactor vessel. Approximately one percent of the fuel and debris remains in the vessel. "

If you would like to see the sequence of events at TMI in 1979, visit
http://www.tmia.com/accident/28.html

The offical death toll at Chernobyl...... 55.
See Elena's "Kidd of Speed" site mentioned in other posts and decide for yourselves whether that is a reasonable assessment. For me I think the eventual toll could be 55,000 plus. Incidentally her site has changed since I last looked. It appears she is trying to raise money for orphaned children in the Ukraine now.

My predjudice? For my sins I work in the power industry.

Regards
Paul
(Lucky I didn't get in too deep!)

[Bushmiller]

Just another link re Three Mile Island. It does show the panic that sets in when nuclear is involved.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi04.htm

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

A link to Elena's "Kidd of Speed" Chernobyl disaster site. Her site is distinctly amateurish, which probably adds to it's credibility, but it does take some negotiating.

http://www.elenafilatova.com/
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter2.html

These are two pages I think are too important to miss. View them in the reverse order. My apologies to those of you who have already found them. (I am always surprised to find not everyone is as inept as me with computers.)

I find her broken English very refreshing: like sitting under victory rostrum for formula one car when race finished and victor wasting magnum of finest french champagne on scantily-clad, cheer lady.

Regards
Paul

[ernknot]

I don't care how power is generated as long as i can keep my shed powered up and my tools running.

[Bushmiller]

Ernknot

Interestingly, Tasmania recently joined the competitive electricity market on the eastern seaboard when the Bass Strait line was commissioned. The Tasmanian wholesale price reduced by about a third. I wonder if the retail cost to your shed and power tools reduced by the same amount.

Probably not....

Regards
Paul

[woodbe]

Bushmiller, thanks for your posts.

It's good to hear some thoughts from someone in the industry. Please try not to scare us about nuclear accidents, haven't you heard that nuclear reactors are safe now? What were you thinking? :D

I tripped over the 'kid of speed' site some years ago. It's an impressive work, but has been generally debunked as faked up. Apparently the photos are really from the Chernobyl area, but were taken on an organised tour, not a daredevil motorcycle ride through the radiation zone.

woodbe.

[bitingmidge]

I tripped over the 'kid of speed' site some years ago. It's an impressive work, but has been generally debunked as faked up.

I've tried a number of times to work out who is having a lend of who there. Instinctively I think that there are as many people (more perhaps) with a vested interest in nuclear proliferation who don't want us to believe things are that bad!

Initially the site was debunked as fake, and there are enough abandoned buildings (and buildings that look abandoned) in that part of the world to make that a plausible argument. If that had been the case, she'd done a great job.

When the argument softened to "she was really on a bus" then my sympathy for the "for" side melted somewhat. What did they mean? The photos are real, but be careful, as soon as you oppose nuclear power there is a danger you may become the sort of person that takes bus trips??

A Ukrainian girl who can afford a motorcycle is capable of faking more than a few photos, so if one is to question the truth, is she actually a girl, is she from the Ukraine, or is she actually a western Greenpeace impostor?

It's interesting, since this thread began, has anyone else noticed pictures of sick kids published in Oz? Invariably they are smiling, or published in a positive light. Two that come to mind: "Brave little Sophie", and Wayne Bennett's son (onthe ABC's Australian Story).

Both shot in black and white and caught with a neutral expression could have expressed the dangers of "sunshine and fresh air" had the photographer chosen to present them in this light.

Photographs don't actually tell the truth.

If you don't believe me, how often have you taken a snap of something, and had to tell the person you were showing it: "but the cow looks a lot smaller in the photograph" or "the sunset was a lot redder than this" or "it's much better than this you just can't photograph it".

Well photographers can catch stuff that doesn't actually exist!

There you go! Back on thread!

Service with a smile. :D :D :D

P

[silentC]

If she was on a bus, how do they explain the presence of her bike in some of the shots?

[bitingmidge]

If she was on a bus, how do they explain the presence of her bike in some of the shots?
Her bike? HER bike?

Photoshop.

It's all lies, I read that somewhere.


P
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[woodbe]

Actually, I don't really doubt that the photo's in kidofspeed are real, and of items in the exclusion zone. I just think that Elena has been very clever in massaging her photo-essay into a daredevil motorcycle ride. She probably was on a bus! I read somewhere that one of the debunkers was on a tour with her, and she and her boyfriend were annoying the guide by moving things and taking photos with the helmet etc. Sounds likely.

Motive? Fame; the next bike payment; a dare; or relief from boredom?

Photographers can indeed manipulate their photographs, but I have no trouble believing about the effects of the Chernobyl disaster. It was reported widely from many sources. You don't have massive population movements, radiation exclusion zones and international nuclear disaster teams assembling because a couple of kids sufferred individual mishaps.

woodbe.

[Bushmiller]

Woops! My naievety and implicit belief in the integrity of human nature just took a king hit. I will investgate further.

However if all the negative aspects of the "Kidd's" site are considered, surely you also attribute similar cynical motives to those in power who wish to propagate the benefits of nuclear power.

If you were one of those persons and suddenly something like this came along, how would you go into damage control? Your best chance would be to discredit the whole endeavour.

Australian 60 minutes visited Chernobyl recently in one of their programmes. Perhaps somebody saw the programme. I only saw clips. The sarcophagus looked real to me. I believed they identified the problems with concrete cracking and high radiation levels. How are birth defects X200 normal levels exlpained?

I feel quite sure powerful authorities with limitless funds would really like to play down such far reaching effects. Are they also denying Three Mile Island? Is the radio active half life of Uranium 235 now back to a managable level from the 730 million years it used to be?

A few too many issues to be a complete beat up, but like I said in a previous post, everybody has an angle; Everybody has a predjudice.

Here is another thought. Nuclear power stations have generally been built under the auspices of government control. The last stations in the US were built in the 70s. They were expensive to build and had to be subsidised.

The current trend is for privatisation. Private companies have to foot the bill and they expect a financial return. In Australia Victoria has privatised most of their stations (not very successfully). NSW wanted to sell off their power stations and corporatised to facilitate that process, but after nearly 10 years have not sold a single station.

Queensland falls somewhere between the two and is arguably the most successful in this regard, but by no means perfect. South Australia I am not sure about but it is the smallect player in the equation. Oh and there is the newcomer Tasmania, which predominantly relies on hydro power, the one time panacea, but now known to be an ecological disaster particularly in fragile ecosystems.

Now we have to find a private investor willing to fork out between two and three times the cost of a thermal station for a nuclear one. Same power, same return but three times the establishment cost.

A recent report estimated nuclear power stations would be viable when the wholesale price for power was between $44 and $70, but this was using new technology that is both untried and untested. It also did not take into account the cost of nuclear waste disposal. It also added that coal would have to suffer a penalty (carbon tax) to make a competitive playing field.

This financial year the best average price for power on the East coast was in South Australia at $37. Queensland was more like $27. Is the economics of the situation starting to come home?

Nuclear power in most countries is heavily subsidised and has grown up in an environment of expensive alternatives (see France). It was pointed out that France exported their nuclear power. I am not sure who we would export power to. We have difficulty just tranmitting small quantities across our state borders!

Enough for now. I think my predjudice may be showing like a 60s petticoat.

Regards
Paul

[bitingmidge]

Photographers can indeed manipulate their photographs, but I have no trouble believing about the effects of the Chernobyl disaster. It was reported widely from many sources. You don't have massive population movements, radiation exclusion zones and international nuclear disaster teams assembling because a couple of kids sufferred individual mishaps.
I wanted to say that!

cheers,

P
:D :D :D

[mic-d]

Bushmiller, thanks for your posts.

It's good to hear some thoughts from someone in the industry. Please try not to scare us about nuclear accidents, haven't you heard that nuclear reactors are safe now? What were you thinking? :D

woodbe.

Neanderthal Times Report - Hunter named grug, discoverer of how to make fire - sacrificed by tribal leaders this week. "He was offending the God of Fire, and besides, this thing - fire - it's dangerous and might hurt or kill someone. Young adults are spending entire nights graffitti-ing the caves by firelight instead of concentrating on breeding. We can't have people lighting fires willy nilly, the risk to our way of life is too great." A spokesman from the tribal comittee for risk management was quoted as saying...



If that's a dig at my previous posts, you better reread them... and may your timber stocks be infested by termites, if not, well may you timber stocks be infested with termites, but nice termites.:D

[bitingmidge]

Interesting report in the Financial Review today (sorry!) to the effect that the Govt is going to fine Electricity Suppliers for not keeping up with demand.

Pity they haven't been reading this thread and started finding people for using too much instead, and giving suppliers bonuses for undersupply!

Cheers,

P

[woodbe]

If that's a dig at my previous posts, you better reread them... and may your timber stocks be infested by termites, if not, well may you timber stocks be infested with termites, but nice termites.:D

It's not a dig at anyone. It's a light hearted way of shining a light on the fallacy that Nuclear power stations are now somehow 'safe'

There's a few local woodworkers picking up 30+ logs of cypress here soon, I'm not sure they would like termites with that :D :D

woodbe.

[reeves]

Inevitably yes, we have a lot of the worlds Uranium and its more eco friendly than coal or gas power. Of u have concerns about Chernobyll style ####ups, yes they ####ed up and the tin shed thye had the thing in melted and the could not contain the fire...solve the saftey and waste issues effectively and wow, cheap clean power....mmmm

wouldnt mind a small personal reactor in the yard..nothing too flash....

mmmm

[echnidna]

Inevitably yes, we have a lot of the worlds Uranium and its more eco friendly than coal or gas power. Of u have concerns about Chernobyll style ####ups, yes they ####ed up and the tin shed thye had the thing in melted and the could not contain the fire...solve the saftey and waste issues effectively and wow, cheap clean power....mmmm

wouldnt mind a small personal reactor in the yard..nothing too flash....

mmmm

Al Quaeda would like one in their yard too. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Grunt]

Inevitably yes, we have a lot of the worlds Uranium and its more eco friendly than coal or gas power. Of u have concerns about Chernobyll style ####ups, yes they ####ed up and the tin shed thye had the thing in melted and the could not contain the fire...solve the saftey and waste issues effectively and wow, cheap clean power....mmmm
If you take in to the equation how much greenhouse producing energy is required to build the reactor, mine and process the uranium and safely(?) dispose of the waste it isn't so green.

The cost of producing energy from a reactor isn't cheap. You've got to take in to account the huge cost of building a reactor. The only way they are competitive is when they are heavily subsidised by the tax payer.

I'd be happy for Australia to look at ways of producing power from coal in a clean manner. This is possible but just more expensive. If we're going to subsidise anything subsidise this and wind power.

[bitingmidge]

I'd be happy for Australia to look at ways of producing power from coal in a clean manner. This is possible but just more expensive. If we're going to subsidise anything subsidise this and wind power.
It's presently only three times the cost, so all it would take would be a 50% reduction in consumption, and the volume would hopefully reduce the cost to the extent that electricity would not cost the consumer any more!

Cheer,

P:D

[Bushmiller]

If you take in to the equation how much greenhouse producing energy is required to build the reactor, mine and process the uranium and safely(?) dispose of the waste it isn't so green.

The cost of producing energy from a reactor isn't cheap. You've got to take in to account the huge cost of building a reactor. The only way they are competitive is when they are heavily subsidised by the tax payer.

I'd be happy for Australia to look at ways of producing power from coal in a clean manner. This is possible but just more expensive. If we're going to subsidise anything subsidise this and wind power.

Aye. There's the rub! Add the cost of mining the ore and the nuclear waste disposal too.

[Bushmiller]

A couple of atomic issues:

Nuclear power is not cheap.

The safe disposal of nuclear waste has not been satisfactorily resolved. It is only deferred.

Safety is dependent on people. People make mistakes because they are human. This is exactly what happened at Three Mile Island. Unfortunately, with nuclear power, mistakes have humungus ramifications with the contamination of food sources etc by radioactive fallout.

Twenty and thirty years on the porblems are still there. If these issues were resolved I suppose we would be half way to considering nuclear. It would then only leave economics, weaponary implications and terrorist strategic target issues to deal with.

Couple? One, two.........

Regards
Paul

[Greg Ward]

From what I understand, Chernobyll environs has turned into a wonderful wildlife sanctuary, now that the humans have left and won't hunt there as N Europeans are wont to do. And no, the local species don't have four eyes....

Perhaps I'm being optomistic, but for all us nature lovers out there, perhaps a good nuclear war or major radioative pollution (say around all cities having more than 10 million population) would not only resolve the problem of global warming (no humans, therfore no warming), it would also provide respite for the wildlife of the world and allow the next generation of dominant species (Dinosaurs being 1, humans 2, indian mynah birds No. 3???) to take over in around 65 million years.

And maybe they will have better luck communicating with their brothers and sisters in another galaxy, so at their future millennium party they can blow this planet just up for fun.
Regards
Greg

[ernknot]

With all this rabbting on, what is the alternative? All these people who are anti coal, anti neuclear, anti solar, ant wind are all harping on about their pet hate. Just like most soap box additcs, no one has the solution.If you want to be critical then you must also be constructive. Otherwise SHUT UP!!

[bitingmidge]

Since I've continually posted my solution, does that mean I don't have to shut up?

:D :D :D

P

[ernknot]

Speak up I can't see you

[Greg Ward]

Tas Devils are unique in their ability to smell decaying objects, but they are rare and will shortly only exist in Denmark.

Denmark now has a strong affilliation with you Tassies......What was that song by the Beatles, something about Scandanavian wood?

It burns well, so maybe timber plantations will solve the problem and we won't need coal or Uranium any more.

Stop being rational. It will stifle this thread and we don't want those with a loose bias to lose their therapy here.

Greg

[woodbe]

With all this rabbting on, what is the alternative? All these people who are anti coal, anti neuclear, anti solar, ant wind are all harping on about their pet hate. Just like most soap box additcs, no one has the solution.If you want to be critical then you must also be constructive. Otherwise SHUT UP!!

Computer says NO.

*Cough*

I can't see the constructive part of your post. If you ignore your own advice, what do you expect us to do with it? :confused:

[outback]

Why don't we sticky tape plastic bags to all the cows bums, then burn the methane.











Now that my friends is a solution I bet none of you thought of. Just call me Mr ideas.

[Christopha]

Elbow power should solve it all and have energy to spare.... all we have to do is hook a generating system up to the elbows of all the wankers on here and the energy crisis would be solved!

[ozwinner]

Elbow power should solve it all and have energy to spare.... all we have to do is hook a generating system up to the elbows of all the wankers on here and the energy crisis would be solved!

Good idea Mr Gigawatt..

Al :p

[Christopha]

What? Which watt is what you mean Head Wanking person..... we know how you train the trowel hand!!!!

[bitingmidge]

Elbow power should solve it all and have energy to spare.... all we have to do is hook a generating system up to the elbows of all the wankers on here and the energy crisis would be solved!

Wouldn't there be a problem with premature electrocution?

P
:D :D :D

[echnidna]

Wouldn't there be a problem with premature electrocution?

P
:D :D :D

or this problem :eek:

[Bushmiller]

Ernknot

I thought for a moment no one would ask. You have restored my faith in human nature (well, partially in that human nature is ultimately predictable.) If you look at my first post on this subject, I did mention
before I get in too deep.

The first and easiest solution is that we just use less electricity. Easy but often not palatable. Many years ago someone asked me how to reduce his electricity bill. I said you can start by turning off lights when you are not in the room. His attitude was "bu**er that" and that was the end of the conversation. If everybody used 10% less electricty our initial targets of reduction in greenhouse gases would be met immediately. Incidently, the power producers would probably freak out.

Another example:- If you only need a cup of boiling water, don't fill the kettle to the brim, only fill a quarter of the electric kettle. Apply these principles to most of your electical needs and you will use less electricity and save money too.

OK, I hear you. Soon we will be back to the current situation so the best that electricity reduction does is buy time. That is what we need. Whatever the solution is, we need time, not to put off the dreaded moment but to develop alternatives.

At this time, I believe there is not an economic or sustainable alternative to coal-fired thermal stations. However, particularly in Australia, I think solar power with further development could become viable. Perhaps we will see it initially as an addition to our houses which feeds back into the grid when we generate a surplus. We already have solar heating for water.

Solar only produces during daylight hours, but that is OK. We probably use twice as much power through the day as we do at night. The base load thermal stations will continue to produce through the night hours. The possibility of storing solar power in batteries is an absolute non starter. Visions of huge parabolic, sun tracking collector plates in the desert is just not economic...yet.

Wind power only produces when the wind blows and does not seem to be really economic so far. Proposed wind farms are being knocked on the head because investors cannot get government subsidies. We talk about polution. Windmills (in the hundreds) are an eyesaw and noisey too. Now we are concerned about birds flying into them as well. Have those people who complain not heard about bird strike in aircraft engines?

I am wary of boring you good folks, but the initial way to go for me is to clean up our existing act. The CO2 emissions from the stacks have to be reduced. This will not come cheaply either and nor is the technology there yet. Hence my earlier comment about buying time and conserving electricty (and indeed other fuels). CO2 sequestration is a possibility, particularly if could be used to force other fuel, such as natural gas, back out of the ground thus getting a double benefit.

Incidentally gas is a much cleaner fuel than coal but not normally able to compete on price. Consequently it is used for peaking power plants (they only generate when wholesale prices are around ten times the norm and then perhaps only for an hour). They are often gas turbines. The other use for them is when a political move is being made to create jobs.

Enough.

Back to you folks.

Regards
Paul

[ernknot]

Computer says NO.

*Cough*

I can't see the constructive part of your post. If you ignore your own advice, what do you expect us to do with it? :confused:
Shut up?

[woodbe]

Shut up?

You're a friendly coot aren't you? :)

No, that's not constructive. It's an attempt to censor the debate, which has been quite friendly when you consider the subject matter.

Anytime, anywhere this subject gets discussed publicly, there always seems to be a polarisation of views. It's the same here. It's a problem with no 100% easy and 'correct' answer. If you find it annoying to read a thread with a lot of discussion and few solutions, save your click and don't read it, your blood pressure will thank you :)

woodbe.

[dazzler]

You lot

need to

(put on Dr Evil Voice)

"get a freaking room"

:p :p :p

[ozwinner]

Keep it nice guys..

Al :)

[Daddles]

Keep it nice guys..

Al :)

Wot? This lot :confused:

After eleven pages, the big padlock seems a good place to start ;)

Richard

[ozwinner]

After eleven pages, the big padlock seems a good place to start ;)

Richard

Thats the last resort if they dont listen.

Al :)

[DanP]

Can't we give it a dose of voluntary euthenasia?

[RETIRED]

Yep. It is going in ever decreasing circles.:D