You think Australia has a Nuclear Future [Archive]

bitingmidge

14th June 2006, 09:29 AM

I haven't had time to watch the lot, but will do so later.

A few things stand out. It's a photo essay by a bloke who doesn't speak the language, he's taking pics in an institution for disabled kids.

We don't have those institutions any longer in this country, but in the 60's and 70's it would have been easy to have put together a similar album here.

Nice pics, but probably vouyeristic claptrap.... I'll wait till I've seen it all, and read his scientific backup before I make judgement. (For instance, has he analysed the chemicals used to fertilize the turnips their mothers ate before jumping to conclusions about the cause?)

On the other hand http://www.kiddofspeed.com/ still does it for me, despite a huge wave of conspiracy theories when the pics were first published.

The potential for disaster is great, sure, but it's not just nuclear reactors which cause disruption. Just ask the people of Bopal:

The report from London-based Amnesty International said "new research" revealed that more than 7,000 people had died immediately after the gas leak, while a further 15,000 people had died of related diseases since 1984.

"More than 100,000 people are suffering from chronic or debilitating illnesses," the report said.

I wouldn't particularly like to be living within 5k of a fuel refinery if there was a major accident either!

Personally, I'd support HUGE increases in power costs so that consumption would be reduced and the world's resources would be used more prudently, but the same bleeding hearts that moan about damage caused by a nuclear accident, would then be filling their websites with graphic pictures of kids in rags, sheltering against the freezing cold.

I'll go over the whole site in detail before making up my mind though!

Cheers,

P
:D

Andy Mac

14th June 2006, 09:33 AM

Little Johnny seems to be jumping to some push from overseas, surprise surprise.
Like Schtoo, I'm not keen on the nuclear powerplant 'alternative', but we're running out of options. It appears that the plants themselves have a limited life span, so not only the waste to dispose of, but the plant itself?! Never mind, we've got great tracts of desert, and an empty ocean just on the doorstep.:rolleyes:
We are going to need more power, especially with the push for desalination, so there is a link between water supply and power needs. I've heard that the Perth desalination plant will be fired by natural gas.
Cheap coal seems to be all the go here in Qld, another short sighted attempt.
Like the water debate, I don't think we should rely on one source for all our power needs, spread it around to what is most suitable in the locality. I've always liked the idea of solar and wind power, but there are high initial costs involved, which aren't offset by power returns...certainly not in the short term.

Cheers,

Iain

14th June 2006, 09:33 AM

Chernobyl is an unfair comparison as we are talking Russian technology (oxymoron).
Just take a look at the cars and aircraft they produce, I have been for a ride in a Russian military chopper and that was the ultimate in crude.
Even the Lada Samara, to make a point, was still using a generator and blew headlights over a certain speed as regulation didn't work.
I dread to think what happens within a reactor, near enough is good enough......Comrade Homer.
At this point Solar is not an option as it is not efficient enough unless you run a few acres of panels to power one home.
The only decent things I have had out of Russia where the flight home and Borsch.

Zed

14th June 2006, 11:08 AM

Nice pics, but probably vouyeristic claptrap.... I'll wait till I've seen it all, and read his scientific backup before I make judgement. (For instance, has he analysed the chemicals used to fertilize the turnips their mothers ate before jumping to conclusions about the cause?)

midge, get serious - this is irrefutable - are you just trying to cause an argument here ?:mad: this deserves a red if ever!:mad:

everybody knows too many electrons whizzing about a nucleus is bad for you,. so is beryllium, cynenide, nicotine, crossing the road etc. however we dont ban elastic metals (beryllium), ciggies (nicotine), battery factories & gold smelters (Cyenide), busses and roads do we ? is greenhouse emmisions the only way ? obviously not. this thread alone mentions heaps of options (solar, tidal, wind)

we need power, or we need to get off the planet and as grunt so elequently put it previously "Strip mine other plantets instead". "Paying higher power bills" is short sighted and is simply a nose thumbing at poor folk. its not about cost u goose, its about sustainability and alternatives...

bitingmidge

14th June 2006, 11:27 AM

are you just trying to cause an argument here.
Yes.

this deserves a red if ever Go for it, but it's a pretty gutless way of responding to a serious argument, or showing that you don't have a better answer. So come on... give me an alternative. Show me how YOU would get the message across to your neighbours that they really should be insulating their house better and creating solar dams, rather than heating it, or that airconditioning is completely unnecessary at the office.

Go on... show me.
.
we need power, or we need to get off the planet .Why?
We've only had power for a hundred years or so, why not ration it and treat it as a valuable commodity instead of lighting bridges and buildings in pretty coloured lights all night. Why should we burn coal at 25,000 tonnes a second just so our kids can leave a light on in their bedroom all night?

.
"Paying higher power bills" is short sighted and is simply a nose thumbing at poor folk. . No it's not, it's far sighted, and the simplest way for Joe Bloggs to get the point. We can introduce a safety net for poor folks. I'm not that harsh, but once apon a time living rooms had a single 60 watt bulb in the centre of them....and power was so expensive my old man used to rant and rave about us leaving the lights on, and even took the bathroom bulb out once. We no longer think of it as something of value.
.

its not about cost u goose, . I'm an insect you ape!

its about sustainability and alternatives... AND efficient use of resources. The most sustainable source of power will still drive consumerism which in turn keeps the merry go round turning... more aircon, more consumption, more resources used ...

Get real Zeddy, the source of the problem is the REASON for the power use, not the creation of power itself.

Same goes for fuel.

And even for "renewable" resources. Time for a wholesale shift.

Tonight, I'm going to a football match. The power consumed by the stadium lighting could probably keep a small town alive for a month, complete with all functioning emergency services. Does that not seem wasteful to you?? All those tons of coal burnt on a football match for crying out loud.

Cheers,

P

bitingmidge

14th June 2006, 11:30 AM

this deserves a red if ever
Go for it, but it's a pretty gutless way of responding to a serious argument, or showing that you don't have a better answer. So come on... give me an alternative.

Like I said Zeddy,

Gutless.

P
:D :D :D

echnidna

14th June 2006, 11:33 AM

No matter which course the Government takes there will be heaps of whingers and opponents. So they can't avoid a big brawl.

In that scenario going for nuclear is the easy course for the Government of the day. (regardless of party politics)

bitingmidge

14th June 2006, 11:59 AM

It doesn't matter what the topic, dams, fuel, power, there is no shortage of people who:

a) think what we have is bad
b) think that change to what we have is bad
c) think "they"(someone else) should do something about it
d) don't want a solution which will in any way affect the way they presently live
e) throw stones (or red squares :D ) at anyone who proposes an alternative which has an impact on them, but never propose an alternative.

At the same time we have governments who are elected by the above people, and want to stay in power, so just keep responding.

Time for a benevolent dictatorship I think, or a true republic??

Cheers,

P
:D :D :D

silentC

14th June 2006, 12:43 PM

So what IS the answer? Overthrow the government? Things will only get to that point when it's already too late to do anything. Try to educate the masses? Waste of time. Most people are either too complacent, too dumb, or have too much to lose. The way I see it, collapse is inevitable. All we can do is sit back and watch. Behaving yourself will not change a thing but at least it will give you a clear conscience. Which will be cold comfort when the last drop of oil or last lump of coal is gone and they come to break down your door and steal your stash of baked beans.

TassieKiwi

14th June 2006, 01:01 PM

I just looked at that site. How have 'they' kept all of this out of the spotlight for 20 years?

If you have children, have a look. Look anyway.

Flippant comments will no longer suffice.

I need to go for a walk now, in the clean Tassie air. I will try not to cry.

Zed

14th June 2006, 02:36 PM

midge, I dont have the answer/s to the worlds fuel hunger. I wish I did. If I had it I would publish and hopefully make some money and help the planet, my kid etc....

I cant influence my neighbours on their enegy utilisation withouth them satrting to hate me for telling them how to run thier lives - I do however make an attempt to keep mine to a minimum.

FYI - my reddie was for the statement about the deformed kids being deformed due to turnip fertiliser rather than radiation poisioning caused by chernobyl, not your wishing to debate things - I do generally agree with your sentiments - just the above I took offence too.

if that is gutless in your eyes so be it.

bitingmidge

14th June 2006, 02:39 PM

If I may stray back onto the thread for a moment:

midge, get serious - this is irrefutable -

It's not actually. I've just spent a fascinating if not enjoyable(?) lunch hour reading a summary of Greenpeace's recent report, the UN Chernobyl forums report of last year, and a few other commentaries. On balance, I don't think my first reaction was far off the mark. Neither side it seems has been terribly careful about producing statistics which can be corroborated.

Yes there was a terrible nuclear catastrophe. Were the deformities shown a result of these? There seems to be little evidence that that was actually the case, and the photographer comments on future generations of these families without looking to the past. I think I'd want to make sure they weren't the product of a dud gene pool before making sweeping statements, but that's why I'll never be a "journalist".

We have kids with leukemia here, kids with tumors, kids with severe mental disabilaties.

The difference is that we have familiarly comfortable institutions, surgery, better care, different dress customs, Ronald MacDonald House, the Starlight foundation, and no nuclear story, all of which would make it more difficult for an undoubtedly gifted photographer to produce the impact that this one has were he to do the same here.

The pics in this sense do more to remind me of my comfortable place in the world than they do to make me aware of any danger.

I have also scoured the photographer Paul Fusco's other galleries, and like a few others of his type, he's probably got little chance of dying happy!

I don't want to deny, that there was a catastrophe, nor that these kids are not at all well, nor that the photo essay is powerful. All of those things are completely true.

I just think the photos are designed to attack one's emotions and they do that very well, but in this as well as most other issues, an unemotional analysis of the cause is more appropriate.

I guess I'm just in a particularly obstreperous mood today, I just love monthly progress claim time!

Cheers,

P (Sorry Grunt, I didn't mean to devalue your original post - honest!)
:cool:

Zed

14th June 2006, 02:50 PM

Midge,

I (dis)respectfully disagree with your statements about the deformities being cuased by other means rather than radioation poisioning.

IMO for you to say/imply/suggest that this may have been caused by something else and should be explored/investigated/studied prior to formal conclusions being drawn displays the following :

Pig ignorance,
Journalistic investigative aptitude,
willingness to incite an argument for the sake of the argument itself.

I imagine that you'd be the type of person that when asked "what colour is the house we're looking at?" would respond by saying "its red, on this side"

TassieKiwi

14th June 2006, 02:58 PM

Hmmm. Putting aside the 'no nukes' argument, those children are alone in those institutions, over there, right now. Just kids. No future.

silentC

14th June 2006, 03:00 PM

The point that is made in any dispassionate review of Chernobyl is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove a connection between deformities and illnesses that are presenting now, and what happened then. It's all based on statistical analysis: are there more cases now than there were before the accident? How do you prove it?

The first the Western world knew about what happened was when some workers at a reactor in Sweden discovered radioactive particles on their clothes. They couldn't find the source and it was investigations into that which forced Russia to admit what had happened. This means that the stuff was spread far and wide across Europe.

In fact, I have read that the majority of the fallout affected surrounding countries. The people in Chernobyl and surrounds who died immediately as a result of the accident were killed by radiation, not cancer.

bitingmidge

14th June 2006, 03:09 PM

I (dis)respectfully disagree with your statements about the deformities being cuased by other means rather than radioation poisioning.
Thanks Dr Zed, and I guess your other medical colleague Dr Photographer would confirm that?

Stats that I've read today vary between a two and ten-fold increase in various ills depending on who is reporting. One even had the frightening conclusion that on a 5million person population base, the actual increase in numbers were insignificant.

No increase is acceptable, but I guess I'm once again railing against a lack of objectivity in reporting.

It's a marvellous thing photography, but it's not a truthful reporting medium. How many times have you shown someone a photo you took and said "but it wasn't really like that"........

TassieK you are dead right.

Cheers,

P

keith53

14th June 2006, 03:16 PM

greeny propaganda :mad:

Unfortunately not! There's a lot of information on the Intenet and quite a few books about this disaster. Amongst a lot of other material I've read, one book was written by an investigating engineer based upon his personal experiences just after the "accident". It highlights the soviet thinking of the time. Especially the buck-passing and cover-ups till the evidence of what had happened became so widely experienced any further attempt to hide the facts was futile.

It was an inefficiently designed reactor and the main reason this model was built was that it provided some of the right material for making nuclear bombs.

Personally, I don't care how alegedly safe they are now, I formed an opinion at the time that this technology is the last thing we need in this country. I don't know what all the alternatives to nuclear power are but I do know that there's an awful lot more that can be done before this is ever given any credence.

Interesting isn't it, that the "debate" is only raised when Little Johnny is in the US. You can bet your bottom $ that if it ever happens, we won't be buying this technology from the French or the Germans. It will be US companies that benefit..

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a greenie by any stretch of the imagination.:)

Keith

Grunt

14th June 2006, 03:21 PM

P (Sorry Grunt, I didn't mean to devalue your original post - honest!)

You should know by now that my posts have no value to start with.

I did a bit of search on the number of casualties caused by Chernobyl. Greenpeace estimated 100,000 fatal cases and 250,000 incidents of cancer. WHO in there initial estimates were at 4000 deaths.

This report (http://www.chernobylreport.org/?%20p=downloads) which appears to be balanced and produced by actual scientists, suggests the number is between 30,000 and 60,000.

With that number of deaths caused by radiation the number of people with non-fatal cancers would be in excess of 100,000. Children are more vulnerable to cancers caused by radation.

My biggest concern with Nuclear Power is what to do with the waste. The stuff is really leathal for 25,000 years and doesn't really go away for 100,000 years. You are kidding yourself if you believe that we can build something that will contain this stuff for that long.

Interesting, The Age had two related articles.
Debunking the Greenhouse Friendliness of Nuclear Energy (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/debunking-nuclear-myth-of-greenhouse-friendliness/2006/06/13/1149964530863.html)

Pipe Ruptures (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pipe-ruptures-at-nuclear-reactor/2006/06/14/1149964573664.html)

Grunt

14th June 2006, 03:28 PM

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a greenie by any stretch of the imagination.:)

The older I get the greener I become. I keep looking at the world and keep getting amazed at how fricked it really is.

I've decided that I'm going to power down. As SilentC says, it won't make a difference but at least I'll have some baked beans for someone to steal.

Chris

Andy Mac

14th June 2006, 03:50 PM

Interesting isn't it, that the "debate" is only raised when Little Johnny is in the US. You can bet your bottom $ that if it ever happens, we won't be buying this technology from the French or the Germans.
Keith, exactly my point earlier!
And Grunt, I just had a look through those Age articles, the first one is juicy stuff, and written by someone who should know what he's talking about.
I'll have to admit not looking into the photo essay that prompted this thread, my stomach is pretty weak when it comes to kids and deformities. No doubt the emotive content could be seen as swaying the argument, but due to my cynical nature, I think the true legacy from Chenobyl will always be watered down by vested interests...like the pro-nuclear industries. If official estimates are 30,000 minimum, I'd bank on their higher one- 60,000 killed. And the fallout, which obviously went on from an earlier date than reported, may have had a wider impact than Europe alone. Like the dumping of dried apricots from Turkey on the world market soon afterwards.

Cheers, from another NIMBY:D

silentC

14th June 2006, 03:59 PM

If you really want to get into it, have a look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster) and follow up some of the references. Lots of contradicting figures, depending upon who commissioned the study.

There are a couple of frightening aspects to it though. One is how far the contamination spread over Europe and the other is how fragile the 'sarcophagus' over the reactor is. It's not air tight and leaks water. No-one really knows how much fuel and other stuff is still in there. Anyone want to volunteer to have a look?

Zed

14th June 2006, 04:42 PM

It's all based on statistical analysis: are there more cases now than there were before the accident? How do you prove it?

Darren,

you answered your own question in your first sentance. one of the premises of scientific disemination is: "repeatable, measurable and predictable."

Hence the statistics you speak of is the proof itself. Oh.. unless you discount Hiroshima and Nagasaki... If you look at all the stats available, even taking a pessimistic "low number" actual figure then the numbers are still pretty high. what did Hiroshima cause in the initial bast ? was it 140k ? then cancers until this very day.... no doubt someone here can scare up the stats on the net.

with Chernobyl its probably less immediate death figures but I woud imagine the fallout cancers may prove just as high.

Having no Lymphatic system, brains outside of skulls, huge tumours, massive cretinism, lukemia's etc etc.... this is proof enough for little old me. whilst I cannot see a better alternative i think nuc power is the only thing with enough output to satisfy us humans. what about the waste ? I reckon do a superman and hurl the waste into the sun. expensive ? sure, risky ? probably, beats burying it if you ask me...

silentC

14th June 2006, 04:53 PM

A couple of things. Firstly, statistical analysis does not prove anything. It gives you an indicator that there might be a connection between some event and an observed phenomena, but you need something else to actually prove it. The first question you must ask yourself when assessing a theory is "could any other set of circumstances give rise to the results I have observed". If the answer is yes, you have to eliminate those first.

Second, all of the things you describe happen all the time elsewhere in the world. The only question is whether or not they are happening more in that particular part of the globe than a. they do elsewhere and b. they did before the event. Even if the answer to both is yes, you do not have proof, but you do have enough evidence to be suspicious.

The problem is that it is hard to prove the connection. You can't (unfortunately) just say "well, it happens a lot more there than it did prior to 1986, so therefore it must be because of the radiation".

Mate, it probably is and either way it's horrible. I'm not disagreeing with you on that score. Just pointing out that it's very hard to prove and this explains why the numbers vary so widely and why so many people are able to argue against it.

Remember: lies, damn lies and statistics...

Andy Mac

15th June 2006, 10:04 AM

Going back to the energy debate and the need (or otherwise) for nuclear power, I came across a really good book yesterday called "Australia Compared". Although at $50 odd I didn't buy it, I had a good scan through it...basically compares Australia with a list of many countries throughout the world, with statistics on many things. Like income, health, education, water usage and energy consumption, spread over 2 pages for each category. It scored Australia on a list, supported by 4 relevant graphs, based on the Bureau of Stats., with changes over a twenty year gap. A fascinating insight really, but what took my interest was the fact that each of us uses more energy and water than we did twenty years ago! So much for energy saving developments, and waterwise etc. We really are a mob of hungry consumers, with little thought for future needs.:(
Maybe 'Midges suggestion- of making us pay more for energy AND water usage- is worth listening to. Now if we could just charge industry, like aluminium smelting, for the real, unsubsidised costs of electricity...?

Cheers,

Ramps

15th June 2006, 11:18 AM

1. Congratulations Grunt the more this sort of discussion is brought in to the public eye the better we all are.

2. Personally I think the photo essay is a gret piece of work.

3. This sort of work is exactly the reason I do NOT watch the TV news and read newspapers. It gives one side to a story on a subject that I can do jack %$^ about and just makes me frustrated and depressed ... I'd pefer to be designing my next project.

4. I think of my self towards the green side of things

5. Do I think Nuke power has a future in Oz ... depends on if we can get enough information to prove it's any worse than coal fired power stations ... here's one in Qld (cleaner than the brown coal from Vic) http://origin.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5165370,00.jpg

6. Mark Diesendorf (UNI NSW): Australia has the biggest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the world. Australia’s biggest single source of emissions is burning coal to generate electricity. Coal-burning also emits dangerous air pollutants, including oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, sulphuric and hydrochloric acid, boron, fluoride, particulate matter, mercury and even low-level radioactivity. In addition, coal is responsible for much water pollution, water consumption, land degradation, and occupational health and safety hazards ... from Ockham's Razor about 2 months ago.

7. How about we all panic about the damage we're already doing to the current generation ... and our kids ... why is Cancer so high in Australia already?

8. I wish I had an answer

9. Great to see some level-headed argument about the whole subject (I can forgive a little emotion when the thread starts something made to do exactly that)

10. Thanks guys

keith53

15th June 2006, 11:24 AM

The older I get the greener I become. I keep looking at the world and keep getting amazed at how fricked it really is.

I've decided that I'm going to power down. As SilentC says, it won't make a difference but at least I'll have some baked beans for someone to steal.

Chris

Can't really disagree with any of that..

Ramps

15th June 2006, 11:42 AM

By the way:

there are 442 "new clear" power plants operating around the world (over 100 in the US) producing nearly 370 000 MW of power and another 31 in construction.

there more NPP's commissioned 21-22 years ago than any other time in history ... hmm when was Cherobyl '86.

the cost of producing clean power from coal will triple our power bill (see this article from the Australian (http://origin.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19398445-28737,00.html))

The info from Ockhams razor that I quoted above is here (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1625259.htm) for those genuinely interested in alternatives

The average coal fired power station runs at about 31% efficiency.

... no opinion here just sime facts

Eddie Jones

15th June 2006, 12:29 PM

An estimate of 60,000 deaths in the nuclear industry is certainly not trivial. But take a look at this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining

Admittedly estimates, but 20,000 deaths IN ONE YEAR in China ALONE in coal miners. This does not include deaths in the general population directly caused by illnesses caused by breathing the smoke and fumes from burning the stuff.

Makes me wonder if there are any figures on how many have died mining this stuff over the years??

TassieKiwi

15th June 2006, 04:40 PM

Apparently (according to Auntie yesterday) the current and planned Nuke stations will exhaust the known supply of Uranium in about 9 years.

Johnny didn't tell you that.

DanP

15th June 2006, 04:48 PM

You blokes are kidding yourselves if you think that we won't go to nukuler power AND your really playing with it http://www.ubeaut.biz/wanker.gifif you think that Chernobyl is a good comparison to make to current plants. It's like comparing a sand castle to the Taj Mahal.

From what I've read, Nuclear power is the cheapest and cleanest power there is. I would have thought the Greenies would love it. It will stop the shyte we're currently putting into the atmosphere burning millions of tonnes of coal. Then again, logic and reasoning are not their strong suits are they?http://www.ubeaut.biz/smarty.gif

Dan

bitingmidge

15th June 2006, 04:59 PM

OK all you anti-nuclear knowledgeable types, what's the go with Thorium (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm) then?

From what I gather, it's biggest drawback (apart from having a much safer "spent" form) is that it isn't particularly suitable for weapons-grade proliferation, which makes it a bit uncool in the only country that is allowed weapons of mass destruction, and why that particular country (see how diplomatic I am Moderator Zed?) is actually sponsoring work in Russia to see what gives.

As an aside, Australia does have about a quarter of the known reserves, so that could be a handy thing.

More info please!

cheers,

P

Greg Ward

15th June 2006, 05:27 PM

I used to worry that we would be leaving the future generations ....albeit those several hundred or thousands of years hence......nothing.

No water (global warming)

No fuel ( excessive use)

No arable land (urbanisation)

No fertile women or men (tight underpants)

No large herbivores ( food shortages)

No means of transport (as no fuel)

No hairy wombats, whales nor any large creatures that generate visual sympathetic pains on television left alive ( David Attenborough retires)

No Africans ( Aids)

But the reality is that the human race is really resiliant and just as intelligent humans built the pyramids around 5 thousand years ago and the Romans used cement for construction, I now firmly believe that future generations or a few pandemics will resolve the problem of power, population and all other concerns.

Yes, future generations will need to review their wasteful ways, but as the COST of goods and services increases, this will automatically happen. Look how a small increase in petrol has already altered the purchasing habits for new vehicles.....

Ou current stupid concerns will be resolved in time

Coal will run out in around a thousand or so years, so that will solve that problem.

Nuclear fuel will go fusion, so that will solve that problem.

We will begin to breed whales and hairy wombats so that will solve that problem.

Wood is a renewable resource and loves carbon dioxide, so that's OK for global warming.

Men and women will still seek to breed, but the breeding herd will limit the quantity of progeny, so over-population will be resolved as well.

What's the worry???

(Though I guess I will still worry about lawyers and where to dig for gold or find red cedar.... I mean a man's got to have something to amuse him at 3.00 am in the morning)

Greg

Sturdee

15th June 2006, 05:41 PM

One of the arguments that is always used against nuclear power is the matter of waste.

Can anyone tell us what quantity of waste we are talking about. How much waste does a nuclear power station generate in say one year?

Peter.

Iain

15th June 2006, 05:46 PM

One of the arguments that is always used against nuclear power is the matter of waste.

Peter.
Build a waste dump at Nimbin:rolleyes:

mic-d

15th June 2006, 06:20 PM

Nuclear is not perfect, but I think it is the lesser of two evils (nuclear vs Fossil) - yes kiddies, solar, wind, geothermal, tide etc are not going to provide base load anytime soon. Look, for every bad statistic about nuclear energy, someone can and has sited a bad statistic about fossil fuel. Neither are perfect. People have got to get it through their thick skulls that we (life on this island in space) have a date with a radically different world if we do not kerb our use of fossil fuels. Nuclear is currently the only viable, fully contained energy source able to provide base load. Newer nuclear powerplants generate very little waste. Comparing the Chernobyl reactor with modern reactors is like comparing the model T Ford with the Toyota Prius.
I imagine this argument like lying in a bed with a gangrenous foot contemplating what future I have. If someone said hey, you can just lay there and do nothing and your future is assured, or we can take it off, you'll have a bit of pain for a while maybe you won't be able to walk, but then again you will still be around and who knows what the future holds? Perhaps someone will perfect a bionic foot that's even better than the old one. By which I mean, embrace nuclear fission, it might be the only thing that gets us to a better energy source such as fusion... At which point it should be abandoned.

Cheers
Michael

dazzler

15th June 2006, 06:48 PM

OK all you anti-nuclear knowledgeable types, what's the go with Thorium (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm) then?

P

From the link;

Thorium can also be used as a nuclear fuel through breeding to uranium-233 (U-233).

mmmmmmmmmm........mood music, some essential oils, go you dirty little buggers:p

Andy Mac

15th June 2006, 07:51 PM

Nuclear power is the cheapest and cleanest power there is.

Seems debatable, as only the actual energy production stage is...getting the plant and fuel there isn't, or the waste, maintenance and retiring of it. It takes energy to get it there. Sounds to me like it takes some getting rid of. Being a practical sort of guy, my take is that the wind won't stop, the sun won't stop shining, regardless of how much we use. I know I'd rather recycle a wind turbine than a nuclear power plant!:eek:
I think your assertion that Chernobyl is old/poor technology is the nearest you come to a reasonable argument Dan, the last bit about Greenies(environmentalists) is way biased, a very prejudiced view I would have thought. I won't continue with what I was going to say.

Keep debating, without the cr*p.

Regards,

Dan_574

15th June 2006, 08:16 PM

sturdee i heard they produce about 1 tonne of waste per year.

Zed

15th June 2006, 08:16 PM

i remeber watching some show on teeve and they said that there was less than 100kg of "waste" aropund the joint, however this could be propoganda. either way its not that much physically - I still reckon send it to the sun....

echnidna

15th June 2006, 08:17 PM

Those that believe we should go Nuclear are relying on the experts to be totally infallible.

But didn't experts from 3 different nations build;
The Titanic,
The Space Shuttle,
Chernobyl.

Not to mention the problems if terrorists or rogue nations lay their hands on some suitable waste.

But those that think we shouldn't go nuclear,
must have their heads in the sand,
where is the energy for the expanding world poulation going to come from?

hmmm, it seems like I just offended both sides of the debate. :D :D :D

dazzler

15th June 2006, 08:19 PM

Hi

Whats wrong with having an inquiry into the viability of nuclear power for Australia.

Its an inquiry :rolleyes: , you know, lets get some experts and they can look into it and present some findings at the end.

Or perhaps they should just get an online forum and everyone can lay there willies in a line and see who wins.:D . Settle petals;)

echnidna

15th June 2006, 08:23 PM

Dan_574

15th June 2006, 09:12 PM

but why is it an inquiry into nuclear energy only, why not all viable types of alternative energy, there are a mulitude of alternatives that should be explored.

echnidna

15th June 2006, 09:28 PM

probably coz theres enough info from around the world to substantiate that its the most cost effective energy.

dazzler

15th June 2006, 10:15 PM

but why is it an inquiry into nuclear energy only, why not all viable types of alternative energy, there are a mulitude of alternatives that should be explored.

Spot on Dan. Thats what the opposition should be saying:rolleyes: .

Lets look at everything.

Unemployed fat people jumping into wave power pools:confused:

Old people on treadmills making power to get the pension:confused:

See....just takes some beer to think of these things:D

Toolin Around

15th June 2006, 10:26 PM

Couldn't give a s h i t where it was all I saw were some increadibly hurting people - broke my heart. The increadible potential for good is imeasurable and beyond the minds eye but we just keep f#cking it up.

echnidna

15th June 2006, 10:30 PM

and a bank of methane collecting hoses for those who phart a lot.
Just insert a hose and away they go !!!!!

DanP

15th June 2006, 11:25 PM

the wind won't stop, the sun won't stop shining, regardless of how much we use. I know I'd rather recycle a wind turbine than a nuclear power plant!

Problem is wind, solar and water generated power is insufficient to power the entire grid. You need turbines driven by an energy source that supplies a lot of heat to keep up. Only coal, gas and fission can supply enough heat to make it a viable and efficient option. The byproduct of coal fired turbines is environmentally damaging. The byproduct of fission, whilst the reactor is running, is steam. Yes there are issues with transport and waste etc, but I don't think there is a great deal of choice. The coal and gas will one day run out and what do we do then? Rely on wind/sun/water powered plant that does not supply the amount of power required to get the job done and costs a lot more to produce.

the last bit about Greenies(environmentalists) is way biased, a very prejudiced view I would have thought.

I will give you a hint, if you look at the end of the paragraph you will see a smilie poking it's tongue out. Think about it.:rolleyes:

I won't continue with what I was going to say.

Why not? I'm always up for a good laugh. If you don't want to say it then why allude to it.:confused:

Dan

Shedhand

15th June 2006, 11:40 PM

From the link;

Thorium can also be used as a nuclear fuel through breeding to uranium-233 (U-233).

mmmmmmmmmm........mood music, some essential oils, go you dirty little buggers:pyou're obsessed mate. :D :D :D :D

Harry72

16th June 2006, 09:38 AM

What about water power... HHO gas!
Yup power by water, been around for some time but its been kept quiet by the oil companys... you know the ones that keep increasing the oil prices purely for their own profit.
http://www.waterpoweredcar.com/oilcorps.html

Grunt

16th June 2006, 10:29 AM

Harry, it doesn't actually work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell

Grunt

16th June 2006, 11:01 AM

The coal and gas will one day run out and what do we do then? Rely on wind/sun/water powered plant that does not supply the amount of power required to get the job done and costs a lot more to produce.

Uranium will run out too. If they actually build enough reactors to make a difference with global warming, we'll run out of usable Uranium in a few years.

If we start down the path of nuclear, it will take 10 years before get a working reactor.

In that time Australia's population willl have increased by 3+ million. Each year as individuals, we consume more power.

This means by the time the reactor is built, we'll won't be able to turn off any of the coal stations. We'll still pollute as much as we do now.

We need to stop increasing our population. It's bad for the world.

As long as we continue to consume and our population continues to increase we use resources faster and faster. We will run out. The world is finite. We cannot consume infinitely.

It is going to end in tears.

Greg Ward

16th June 2006, 11:17 AM

No it won't end in tears, unless a pandemic eventuates.

But it will end in a big change to life as we know it, as the cost of services and products increases due to huge increases in demand and/or shortages of supply.

Kids will have to learn to walk to school again and public transport will become very popular
Water tanks will provide much of our water.
Demand for fuel will drop as prices increase
We will use some renewables and their use will increase and biofuels will assist in transition.

We can't have constant growth forever, so we will have to suffer a period of transition where we come to live with zero or 'negative' growth.

It won't come in our lifetime, but future generations will live a more frugal more technologically advanced existance. We will have to come to grips with a more sedate life as a species.

There have always been 'eletes' that garner the gold and live a golden life. They will still be around, but the general population will begin to grow vegies and walk.

Greg

Andy Mac

16th June 2006, 11:31 AM

wind/sun/water powered plant that does not supply the amount of power required to get the job done and costs a lot more to produce.

Costs a lot more to produce, and the price of energy therefore goes up, so people use less. The cost of fossil fuels and I dare say nuclear fuel will go up too, as it gets harder to find...and companies get greedier.

I will give you a hint, if you look at the end of the paragraph you will see a smilie poking it's tongue out. Think about it.:rolleyes:

Yeah I did, briefly, and I bit! Probably thought it was a "shove that in your pipe and smoke it" face...

Why not? I'm always up for a good laugh. If you don't want to say it then why allude to it.:confused: Dan

OK. I typed something to the effect that I've always read your posts and quite enjoyed them, you come across as a reasonable, unbiased sort of a bloke...and that statement about Greenies seemed out of character. I should have gone with my initial appraisal, obviously!:)

Anyway. I honestly believe we (humankind) will live to lament our decision if we go nuclear, without giving renewable sources the same R&D (ie. $$$), coupled with a change in lifestyle. By that I mean progress for the sake of it, in which we need to consume so much. Of everything.
And I have a feeling that one reason R&D is not huge, is that wind, sun and tide etc is too hard to tax and hold a monopoly over.

Rant over.

woodbe

16th June 2006, 11:58 AM

A few things stand out. It's a photo essay by a bloke who doesn't speak the language, he's taking pics in an institution for disabled kids.

We don't have those institutions any longer in this country, but in the 60's and 70's it would have been easy to have put together a similar album here.

Midge, with respect, I have to emphatically disagree over this statement.

It's pretty clear that the photo man is taking photos in more than one place, and there is general agreement to the causes of the deformities shown, if perhaps not to the extent. The accident was a true disaster, the fallout was measured and mapped. These effects are known to have occurred in the past from similar radiation exposure.

Frankly, I take my hat off to the photographer. Whilst the images are graphic, and the assembly of them into a photo essay creates an emotional response in the viewer, I can only guess at the feelings of the photographer. That said, there are some excellent, if haunting, images in the collection.

As to the Australian Institutions that no longer exist, I doubt that it would have been possible to assemble a collection of images like this in any recent Australian institution. Whilst patient care has come a long way since the 60-70's, what's on display in these images is more like what might have been in a western institution in the 1800's. Maybe the early 1900's.

What you see in these photo's is something to truly weep over. It's the destruction of normal life and hope for a generation of people living on the other side of the world, and there will be a legacy of birth defects and cancer for many years in the region as a result.

We should ask our government why we have to try Nuclear when they have made no concerted effort to maximise the alternatives. A nuclear plant is a machine, there can never be a 100% guarantee of safety. It's a band-aid solution that doesn not address the problem in any meaningful way.

woodbe.

Grunt

16th June 2006, 12:07 PM

It won't come in our lifetime, but future generations will live a more frugal more technologically advanced existance. We will have to come to grips with a more sedate life as a species.

Actually, it's going to start in the next decade.

We have or will very soon reach world peak oil production. This means no matter how much money or technology we throw at producing more oil we not be able to do so. The gap between demand and supply will continue to widen. This is not the end of oil, it's just the end of cheap oil. Oil production follows a bell curve. The world is at the top of the curve right now.

There are no alternatives to oil. Our entire economies are dependant on cheap oil.

Everything that we eat or own is an oil dirivitive. For every calorie of food we produce it takes 10 calories of energy in the form of oil. We simply will not be able to feed the worlds population without cheap oil.

It is not coincidence that the increase in population follows the exact same curve as the production of oil.

Within 50 years the population will be less than 1 billion people.

Our children do not have a bright future to look forward to.

The only solution is to power down. Consume only what is renewable.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
www.peakoil.com
www.theoildrum.com

mic-d

16th June 2006, 01:30 PM

We should ask our government why we have to try Nuclear when they have made no concerted effort to maximise the alternatives. A nuclear plant is a machine, there can never be a 100% guarantee of safety. It's a band-aid solution that doesn not address the problem in any meaningful way.

woodbe.

Saying we should not move to nuclear fission because of Chernobyl is like saying we should not drive cars now because they used to be less safe when they didn't have seatbelts.
I disagree that nuclear fission is a bandaid solution. I concede it is a bandage solution, but when you're haemoraging the way the energy industry is, I'll take that alternative in its current form to buy us time to get to some safer method of GENERATING BASE LOAD (eg nuclear fusion). It might take 3-4 generations but at least our grand children or great grand children will be around to develop and implement it.

Cheers
Michael

woodbe

16th June 2006, 01:54 PM

Well, again, with respect.

I didn't say we should not move to nuclear because of Chernobyl. I was saying: 'why are we considering a drastic and potentially catastrophic solution when we have paid such hollow lip-service to researching and implementing known safe alternatives'

Chernobyl is a message.

The message says "A mistake with this technology is catastrophic"

You can ignore that message if you like, I happen to think it's important. You might not like the way your grandchildren and great-grandchildren look if there is a stuff-up.

woodbe.

mic-d

16th June 2006, 02:15 PM

Chernobyl is a message.

The message says "A mistake with this technology is catastrophic"

You can ignore that message if you like, I happen to think it's important. You might not like the way your grandchildren and great-grandchildren look if there is a stuff-up.

woodbe.

No, the message says, a mistake with the old technology used to be, to use your word, catastrophic. New generation nuclear plants should not be compared with old, as per my car analogy.
And emotive stuff like what will our grand children look like adds nothing to what should be an objective debate.
To reiterate, we are NOT going to get BASE LOAD from any "alternative" source like solar, wind, farting cows etc.
You think coal is safe compared to nuclear? Well its not. Its just that people do not want to believe it is or do not have the facts before them. CO2 alone will in the long term insidiously alter the face of the earth, it's doing so, measurably, even now. There will be famine and wars because there will be no water, or too much water, it will be too hot, or too cold. We either become far sighted, take the hard choices now and bank against the day when finally a true clean energy source is implemented or leave things get really screwed up.

Cheers
Michael

woodbe

16th June 2006, 02:22 PM

bitingmidge

16th June 2006, 02:41 PM

There are no alternatives to oil. Our entire economies are dependant on cheap oil. If by "Our" you mean, Australia, Europe and the USA, I'd agree. There are a few other economies which aren't dependant on it though, (although it does contribute).

"Our" economies are more dependant on growth per se. The absence of oil will create other opportunities for growth (goat carts for instance may well make a comeback), so probably the economies will survive.

Oil really hasn't been a vital part of our life for all that long, and there's no doubt it will be an uncomfortable transition, but new economies will emerge. (probably feudal ones I think!)

Everything that we eat or own is an oil dirivitive. For every calorie of food we produce it takes 10 calories of energy in the form of oil. That sounds like Greenpeace again. "Our" means the US doesn't it? In Oz I'd be interested to see how those sums apply to the cattle industry for instance, or even fishing. How much oil is consumed catching a zillion ton of tuna, canning them getting them into the market etc? A bit. But a small change in the way markets work would fix that.

Fish gets caught and sold on a sailing boat, and if you want some you ride your bike to the wharf. No oil, except for that used in making the bike and the boat.

It used to happen, it will happen again, and the mindset will adjust out of necessity. I can hardly wait to watch commercial current affairs reporting of it!

It is not coincidence that the increase in population follows the exact same curve as the production of oil.
No of course its not, those bloody American statisticians have made it look like that to deflect the heat from them and us. The coincidence is that a huge part of the increased consumption has come from the developed nations, while the developing ones have contributed to the population growth. (Notwithstanding China's increase, which is driven as much as anything by them producing stuff for the "first" world.)

Within 50 years the population will be less than 1 billion people.
Well won't that fix the problem??

(I'll do my bit by dropping off it in that time!)

I maintain my position: bleating about it won't help, reducing personal consumption will help, but until strong (financial) disincentives are introduced, our neighbours won't care and will keep driving V8's, and the idiots on tele will keep talking about outrageous petrol prices as though it will never run out.

Cheers,

P (looking forward to the next decade with great interest, might even run for parliament!)
:D :D :D

Rocker

16th June 2006, 04:58 PM

mic-d

16th June 2006, 05:09 PM

Right then. Thanks for clearing that up. Nuclear reactors are 100% safe, not like the old nuclear reactors which were also safe.

We have never tried to get a 'base load' from any alternative option. We have millions of acres of desert and untold sunlight, but we should ignore that because alternative won't work. The only options that will work are those proposed by big business. American big business.

Excuse me for being a cynic. :)

woodbe.

I never said old nuclear reactors were 100% safe. But I will go so far as to say that the risk posed by modern reactors is neglegible (OK but not zero). Everything in life has risk, it's just that some things have a high perceived risk. For example, one or two people die from a shark attack in Australia and there are all sorts of weird calls to protect bathers, 1000's of people die or or have seriously bad outcomes in vehicle accidents every year in Australia and do we see calls to ban wheeled transport?? No? Because the authorities are sort of trying to do something about managing that risk, and the benefit of having wheeled transport arguably outweighs not having it. I wonder how many smokers will be rabidly against nuclear energy but will happily bring a cigaretteto their lips... hmmm?

Call me a cynic too, Bonsai Johnny's about-face on this issue smells fishy, but frankly on this issue I don't really care where the technology comes from, as long as its good technology.
And my apologies to Bosai plants...

Cheers
Michael
And BTW that is a fantastic idea to have solar arrays in the desert providing base load, just explain how you will stop the earth revolving so the sun always shines on them, or what sort of environmental nightmare you will create in manufacturing and disposing of the worlds largest array of batteries to store the energy for the night-time cycle??

mic-d

16th June 2006, 06:08 PM

Just to paint a more balanced picture of my position. I do believe there are changes we can make almost immediately to bring online alternative energy sources in suitable applications. For example, if every authority across Australia made it mandatory for every new house to have a hot water system using some form of alternative energy, for example, but not limited to, solar, instead of elecricity from the grid, that would make a difference. It makes no sense to burn coal to inefficiently generate electricity, send it down the grid to inefficiently heat water. Its a waste. I believe there should also be a 5-10 year amnesty with heavy subsidies for existing houses to swap to an alternative hot water system, after which time mains supply electrical hot water systems should no longer be manufactured. BTW, I wonder how many of us have the flickmixer centred, wasting a bit of hot water each time, without actually needing the hot water?
And here's another one from left field, but not directly linked to the energy generation debate. If everyone gave up drinking bottled water, think about what would be saved in energy/materials in processing that water, making the packaging, distributing it around the world, keeping it cold in shops and disposing of the waste? water for thought!
Cheers
Michael

bitingmidge

16th June 2006, 06:24 PM

For example, if every authority across Australia made it mandatory for every new house to have a hot water system using some form of alternative energy, for example, but not limited to, solar, instead of elecricity from the grid, that would make a difference.
That doesn't do anything to reduce consumption. Producing less costly end product means more will be used. Electricity is still the cheapest form of heating water in Qld at least, and traditional electric hot water heaters have now been banned outright in new construction in favour of heat exchange systems which are significantly more efficient.

Unfortunately, 99% of homes don't even have insulation on hot water lines.

.
It makes no sense to burn coal to inefficiently generate electricity, send it down the grid to inefficiently heat water..

If it's waste you are concerned about, it makes even less sense to allow it power television sets!

More power is consumed by pool pumps than hot water... how much sense does it make to burn coal so some rich prickle can swim in his back yard??

And here's another one from left field, but not directly linked to the energy generation debate. If everyone gave up drinking bottled water....... what about beer? It uses more electricity and more resources.

You see, everyone has their own favourite little thing. Everyone is happy to see something they don't need go, but not prepared to cut back anywhere while blaming the bastards that bottle water! Not buying it will soon stop them.

Back to the "tax". Ration power, allow each household five lightbulbs, a hot water unit and cooking stuff at commercial rates. Supertax any excess consumption, then it'll be fair and consumption will drop. (Oh I may have suggested that before!)

At least there are a few whales around now, so we should be able to get enough fat to burn in our lanterns.

Cheers,

P

Grunt

16th June 2006, 06:40 PM

As a geologist, I am sceptical that oil will run out for quite a few years. All it needs is for the price to increase substantially, and then it will be economic to exploit offshore oilfields in deeper water, and it will become economic to exploit the Athabasca tar sands in Canada that are reputed to contain huge quantities of oil, comparable to the amount present in Saudi Arabia.

It is not about running out of oil, it is about running out of cheap oil.

Canada is expected to product 2.2 million barrels a day of oil from oil sands by 2015. Currently, we use 85 million barrels a day. Oil sands are very energy intensive to extract. Basically, you have to melt tar to get the oil out. The amount of enegry returned from the energy invested is barely positive.

The idea that minerals are likely to run out in the near future was popular in the 60's, when the doomsayers were predicting that a number of minerals would be exhausted by the mid-80's. Of course that has not happened. Any shortages lead to an increase in price which stimulates exploration, and there are still huge areas of the earth which have been very little explored for minerals.

Is what you are saying here is that we will always be able to expore and find more. It is just not possible to have an endless supply from a finite source. The world is finite.

If the worst comes to the worst, oil can be made from coal, as was done in South Africa, when the apartheid regime was subject to sanctions.

If demand for coal stays exactly the same as it is now, we have 250 years supply. With the population doubling every 50 years or so, we've actually only got 90-120 years worth just by population increase.

The world currently uses twice as much oil as we do coal. If we start converting coal to oil, we will use coal much faster. We will reach peak coal in within 2 decades.

Also, the amount of energy required to mine coal and to convert it oil will equal the amount of energy that exists in the converted oil within 20 years. It will be pointless, expending a unit of energy to get a unit back.

I am optimistic that there will be a breakthrough in harnessing nuclear fusion in the next century, well before coal gets anywhere near running out.

Rocker

The Poo-poo will have hit the fan long before nuclear fision is a reality.

Chris

martrix

16th June 2006, 06:41 PM

interesting discussion....you do have a point there midgehttp://www.ubeaut.biz/oldman.gif

martrix

16th June 2006, 06:47 PM

come to think of it, you make a good case too grunthttp://www.ubeaut.biz/deal.gif

mic-d

16th June 2006, 06:57 PM

That doesn't do anything to reduce consumption. Producing less costly end product means more will be used. Electricity is still the cheapest form of heating water in Qld at least, and traditional electric hot water heaters have now been banned outright in new construction in favour of heat exchange systems which are significantly more efficient.

Unfortunately, 99% of homes don't even have insulation on hot water lines.

.

If it's waste you are concerned about, it makes even less sense to allow it power television sets!

More power is consumed by pool pumps than hot water... how much sense does it make to burn coal so some rich prickle can swim in his back yard??

... what about beer? It uses more electricity and more resources.

You see, everyone has their own favourite little thing. Everyone is happy to see something they don't need go, but not prepared to cut back anywhere while blaming the bastards that bottle water! Not buying it will soon stop them.

Back to the "tax". Ration power, allow each household five lightbulbs, a hot water unit and cooking stuff at commercial rates. Supertax any excess consumption, then it'll be fair and consumption will drop. (Oh I may have suggested that before!)

At least there are a few whales around now, so we should be able to get enough fat to burn in our lanterns.

Cheers,

P
No, I'm talking about disconnecting water heating from the grid completely. If consumption goes up, it becomes a water conservation problem not an energy consumption problem. Actually bottled water is not my little thing, I don't buy it and I encourage everyone else to minimize its use. I can see quite dispassionately there are things I could sacrifice and now you've got me thinking, I might go back to HOME BREW and SAVE the PLANET
:D

Cheers
Michael

woodbe

16th June 2006, 11:40 PM

I never said old nuclear reactors were 100% safe.

No you didn't. But there were plenty of people claiming they were safe before all the accidents, and there have been a few.

Now, we have 'modern' technology that you say IS safe and should be trusted. The story is the same, the results are not yet in, but the possibility is just the same as it was before. If something can go wrong, and eventually does, the impact on the population would be immense. As usual, the disaster is unforseen by the proponents of the technology, and they are shocked that things could go so wrong. Again.

There are lots of solutions for night-time power. Just because you haven't heard one you like doesn't mean there are none. Maybe we need a concert of alternative power sources to supply base load? A reactor is the quick fix, but it's a big bill, a big risk, and it shuts down development of seriously low-impact power generation, and perpetuates the low cost energy mindset that got us where we are now.

woodbe.

Schtoo

17th June 2006, 03:52 AM

Wow.

You know, if I was short sighted, I might actually buy into all this wholeheartedly.

Pretty easy to forget how thing were 5-10-20 years ago.

Stuff like cars being 'economical' at 10mpg. Now the best get 60mpg or more.

'Laptop' computers the size of small suitcases that are less efficient at number crunching than a $1 calculator.

Needing enormous cables to speak to someone over the sea, complete with lotsa time lag, bad reception and big $$$.

Talking on the telephone in the car was fine, and it had a dial but no buttons.

Cars belching out black smoke for 15 minutes till you could push the choke in.

Trucks belching out clouds of black smoke moving half the weight they can today.

Able to take 24 photos, and hoping you didn't waste a single one.

Taking a movie meant whirring tapes and sound if you were really lucky, from a camera the size of a shoebox and the weight of a brick that consumed batteries faster than howitzer shells during the 'Battle of the Bulge'.

Torches that always had flat batteries, and cars that did too.

Lithium was only medicine.

The hundred metres world record was over 10 seconds, and steroids weren't even heard of.

Talking to someone was over the back fence, not on this box you are looking at now.

Oh yeah, if we stay where we are at right now, I give us until, say Thursday, if the wind blows just right.

But when a litre of petrol costs $10, you can be sure that it will take you 50 miles, and what comes out the tailpipe will be breathable and prolly drinkable. Heck, coffee might be coming out the tailpipe, just to recycle the heat energy.

A power plant will produce electricity, and it's waste will be clean water and food.

The Tour de France will be a weekend bike ride for old folks.

Your utilities bill will be $3.50 for a family of 5, priced at todays rates.

Bono (the third) will be singing 'ipods for Africa'.

And telemarketers will still be long distance, only it will be mars or some such place where they have been banished to. ;)

(Worried? Yes. Terrified? Not too much.)

Grunt

17th June 2006, 08:16 PM

The problem is that we are going to run out of raw materials if we continue to consume.

Let's have a look at copper. Damn usefull stuff. No Ipods for Africans without it. Within the next decade or so, we will have used half the known sources of copper. We've got all the easy copper, the rest will cost more and take much more energy to retreive than in the past.

Copper usage is going up by 2% per year. This means that in 35 years we will use as much copper than we have ever used in the past. Clearly this can't continue. The world if finite.

Have a look at this post. (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=32628)
If you have an our watch the Video lecture that I've linked to. It's an eye opener.

Chris

bitingmidge

17th June 2006, 08:56 PM

The problem is that we are going to run out of raw materials if we continue to consume. Which will in itself limit continued consumption!

Let's have a look at copper. Damn usefull stuff. No Ipods for Africans without it.No sign of panic there yet: while this sort of resourcefulness exists, (note comprehensive recycling) consumption will decline gracefully.
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/media-pictures/african-ipod.jpg
Within the next decade or so, we will have used half the known sources of copper. We've got all the easy copper, the rest will cost more and take much more energy to retreive than in the past.
So it will be used for important things, maybe no iPods for Australia any more... no more "disposable" tools, back to the old days when copper was more expensive and every wire off-cut on a building site was saved and sold to the metal dealers. Deja vu again!

Copper usage is going up by 2% per year. This means that in 35 years we will use as much copper than we have ever used in the past. Clearly this can't continue.
Watch the usage decline as the cost goes up!

I just want to make the point that it's not all doom and gloom. The last decade or so has been the most wasteful for us as a nation, but we learnt from the Seppos who've been doing it since "the war", and even though the Europeans are a little better (not much), watch the emerging nations come in for their chop over the next decade.

Now here's the thing: do you think they'll be continuing to flog us ultra cheap consumables for ever, or will they realise that they need these resources for infrastructure for them to make their lives a little more comfortable.

Watch for the new eco-industrial systems to emerge in the developing nations which haven't had the "benefit" of a new flatscreen tele every year.

For some, a 12v electric light will be a miracle. They'll achieve miraculous increases in their standard of living by using far fewer resources than we use in "discretionary" spending. Some of us will suffer badly, but others will adapt. Didn't Darwin write something about that?

Cheers,

P:cool:

echnidna

17th June 2006, 09:11 PM

Some of us will suffer badly, but others will adapt. Didn't Darwin write something about that?

Cheers,

P:cool:

Does that mean Grunt will turn into a chimp?????? :eek:

Grunt

17th June 2006, 09:42 PM

I will not turn into a chimp. I will not turn into a goat either.

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/News/AnimalPhotos/Animals_31-40/monkey_goat.jpg

I don't think that it's all doom and gloom. We are in for a bit of a rough ride. The economy is based on growth. Australia is massively in debt. We fund the repayments on the debt with growth. I might of mentioned this before but just incase, growth cannot continue forever, so at some point the economy is going to go south.

Once that happens, we will consume less and start to value things. In the past, everything you owned was valuable. Nothing was wasted. These times will return.

I think the real question is, should I get a new IPod? I've got a blue one but I'm bored with it. Maybe I should go an get a dozen XU-1 tools from Bunnies tomorrow.

kiwigeo

17th June 2006, 11:48 PM

From what I've read, Nuclear power is the cheapest and cleanest power there is.

Dan,

I think you'll find that once you address the real costs of nuclear power (eg decomissioning costs) nuclear power becomes quite expensive. There are cheaoer sources of power that the government hasnt really taken a serious look at. One of these is Hot Dry Rock (HDR) geothermal energy. Geodynamics have a well drilled up in the NE of Sth Australia and plan to build a trial power generating plant once theyve overcome some technical problems with the well. HDR works by circulating water through hot granite basement rock via a spread of wells drilled into same. The heated water returns to surface and drives generators via steam turbines.

Cheers Martin

Schtoo

18th June 2006, 02:15 AM

Oh sure, we will run out of materials if we continue to use them at the same rate and dig them up at the same rate as we do today.

You example of copper, might be a good one.

Except that what copper is used for, most often transmitting power, can be replaced by various other things, depending on what that situation is.

But what you missed Grunt, (again) is that all these doomsayers base their calculations on 'todays consumption' with 'todays technology'.

We don't know what the heck will be invented/discovered next week.

Take the video camera I mentioned.

The old one would use up heaps of batteries, record images (but not very well), and used up enormous resources just by being old-tech.

The one we have now records longer, at higher quality, is much smaller, made largely from recycled materials and various other improvements as you would expect over 20 years.

I would think that in another 20 years the thing will record for a week, at eye-perfect quality and be the size of a matchbox.

With new technologies popping up all the time, old tech being constantly re-worked, todays consumption figures will prolly increase still, but at a reduced rate than the doomsayers predictions.

There is also a nifty little political model called 'capitalism'.

The short version of it is that 'if you can't afford it, then you go without'. Cold, harsh and tough, but it sorts the men out from the girls.

Also has a nifty habit of bringing prices closer to their proper value, if never quite hitting it just right. If they are too low today, they might just be too high tomorrow.

And for extra credit, it also pushes technology to improve, because if your blue ipod is out of vogue, then the shinier, smaller and slicker red one might just replace it...

And (:eek: :eek: :eek: ) use fewer resources doing it.

You do of course realize that it is advancing technology that got us into this pickle, right? If we had stuck to where we were 20 years ago, I don't think we would be in half the trouble we are now.

But the doomsayers forget that too...

I forgot that, silly me. :rolleyes:

Daddles

18th June 2006, 03:39 PM

If you believe that Schtoo, you are sillier than you think you are. New techonology will only come when stock market forces demand it and the stock market only works on immediate profits - it is no longer forward looking.

With new technologies popping up all the time, old tech being constantly re-worked, todays consumption figures will prolly increase still, but at a reduced rate than the doomsayers predictions.

Like an example? Go out to your motor car. Open the bonnet, that funny tin (yeah, we still use steel) thing that hides the motor, the infernal combustion engine. It's still burning petrol isn't it (or diesel, or LPG). Yet alternatives have been around for decades and NOT developed - bought out by big companies and crushed in some cases. The profits (the stock market again) are in making the most out the current technology and while my Falcon bears little resemblance to the Ford T, it's not the sort of real developement we will be needing very soon.

Were you aware for example, that back in the early eighties, a bloke patented and had working, and hydrogen powered motor that created its own hydrogen. No storage of the damned stuff. That was crushed by the legalists worried about hydrogen going bang ... but I wonder how many lobbyists had a quiet word in the right places.

Relying on new technology to miraculously appear and save the day is like General Custer waiting for a Cavalry collumn to ride over the ridge and get his #### out of the poo. It might happen, has happened in the past, but if it doesn't ...

Richard

bitingmidge

18th June 2006, 05:47 PM

Like an example? Go out to your motor car. Open the bonnet, that funny tin (yeah, we still use steel) thing that hides the motor, the infernal combustion engine. It's still burning petrol isn't it (or diesel, or LPG). Yet alternatives have been around for decades and NOT developed - bought out by big companies and crushed in some cases. The profits (the stock market again) are in making the most out the current technology and while my Falcon bears little resemblance to the Ford T, it's not the sort of real developement we will be needing very soon.

Now there's the rub. While the technology exists, prickles like you Daddles keep buyng flipping Foolcans with 4+ litre engines. Yes I know that they are as economical as 2 litre engines forty years ago, and I also know they are twice as powerful.

Now comes the rub: why do they need to be? Can you go anywhere any faster than you could have in an 850 mini? Or even better a 1600 Peugeot?

The frog cars of the 60's were faster and twice as economical then!

There isn't any reason for ANYONE to be consuming more than say 8l/100km in their cars at the moment. That would be a nice start, using just today's technology and product range.

So once again I ask, what will cause the wholesale shift? TAX and HEAPS of it. All I am doing is artificially bringing forward a situation that's going to happen as soon as the supplies start running out anyway, and at least the money has a chance of being used productively.... like on a super fast interstate solar electric transport network...

Oh and don't give me that crap about needing towing capacity. I towed my 1 tonne TS to the Whitsundays legally, and at legal speeds behind a 1.4l Renault, sure it was a bit slow uphill but it was quite safe and comfortable, and used about a third the juice that our friend's Cruiser used towing the same boat.

Small is good...remember the 40hp VW??

cheers,

P

Schtoo

18th June 2006, 10:10 PM

Yep, very true that the stock market (amongst other things) drives what gets released to us suckers in consumerland.

But, and it's a really &^%^$$^ big but, the stockmarket will not likely be the only thing pushing new technology to be used.

Regrettably, I think that 'thing' will change the planet in a really big way... :(

With that hydrogen thing, doesn't surprise me but I'd like to see some evidence of it along with some (at the very least) suggestions of what made it tick.

If I can't see that, then I don't buy it for a nanosecond.

(It wouldn't be that difficult to hold those big wasters to ransom, but I don't see anyone doing it. Until that happens, we are all just passengers...)

silkwood

18th June 2006, 10:41 PM

" I towed my 1 tonne TS to the Whitsundays" Bitingmidge

YOU HAVE A ONE TONNE TABLE SAW??!!! ON WHEELS??!!:eek: :eek:

Cheers

echnidna

18th June 2006, 10:52 PM

With that hydrogen thing, doesn't surprise me but I'd like to see some evidence of it along with some (at the very least) suggestions of what made it tick.

If I can't see that, then I don't buy it for a nanosecond.

(It wouldn't be that difficult to hold those big wasters to ransom, but I don't see anyone doing it. Until that happens, we are all just passengers...)

Hyrogen as anm alternate to petrol is very feasible.

The biggest obstacle to hydrogen as a fuel is the Governments all around the world. They all tax petrol heavily for their own slush troughs.

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

So they''ll legislate against anything that don't fill the trough.

Daddles

18th June 2006, 11:03 PM

Now there's the rub. While the technology exists, prickles like you Daddles keep buyng flipping Foolcans with 4+ litre engines. Yes I know that they are as economical as 2 litre engines forty years ago, and I also know they are twice as powerful.

Mate, said Falchoon is on LPG which, as I understand it, is rather green in itself. It's certainly cheaper. The big Falchoon regularly gets filled with stuff so from that point of view, it's a volume thing, not a motor sized thing (and I rejected the Commodore coz it's back end was smaller ... seriously, got a measuring stick out and all to compare the dimensions that mattered). I also tow stuff, boats and the like. The big donk does that nicely. So I sort of dismiss your comment about the big car, but only sort of.

Richard

bitingmidge

18th June 2006, 11:27 PM

Mate, said Falchoon is on LPG which, as I understand it, is rather green in itself. It's certainly cheaper. The big Falchoon regularly gets filled with stuff so from that point of view, it's a volume thing, not a motor sized thing (and I rejected the Commodore coz it's back end was smaller ... seriously, got a measuring stick out and all to compare the dimensions that mattered). I also tow stuff, boats and the like. The big donk does that nicely. So I sort of dismiss your comment about the big car, but only sort of.
Well when I was a hippy and lived all this stuff I now just talk about, I needed volume, so I had a Mazda Bongo Van (remember them) 1200 cc's and ran it on gas. Only filled it once as far as I can remember....beat that!!

If you were serious about volume and towing and ecology, you'd get an ex-courier Mercedes Sprinter and convert it to biodiesel. Now there's volume, comfort and towing capacity!! AND it's economical to boot.

Not being personal about all this, but if an inefficient 4 litre Falcon runs more economically on gas, a well designed 2 litre will half the fuel use!

Saw a stat the other day to the effect that 70% of all passenger cars in Germany are presently diesel. I know about cost of fuel yada yada yada, but the point is they use HALF what a similar output petrol engine does.

BMW X5 Diesel averages 10l/100 and that's a two tonne high performance truck. :eek: :eek: :eek: See, it is there ready to be done.

but we should only need a litre or so to do it, that's all we needed thirty years ago.

Cheers,

P

Daddles

19th June 2006, 12:39 AM

If you were serious about volume and towing and ecology, you'd get an ex-courier Mercedes Sprinter and convert it to biodiesel. Now there's volume, comfort and towing capacity!! AND it's economical to boot.

Not being personal about all this, but if an inefficient 4 litre Falcon runs more economically on gas, a well designed 2 litre will half the fuel use!

Actually Midge, and this is wandering from the topic but ...

A Bongo or any other van wouldn't do the job because I regularly carry five people ... like three mornings out of five during the week (some weeks it's five out of five). In the afternoons, it's three.

And while most vehicles lose performance on LPG, my Falchoon doesn't seem to. There's probably a drop off in power, sure, but as far as distance per litre of the chosen brew goes, there's no real difference. Yes, it surprised me too, and this if the fourth vehicle I've owned with LPG, but them's the facts with my beastie.

A 2 litre? Will it tow my 18 foot Samar? I doubt it, even the Falchoon takes a deep breath with that one. Of course, you'd be right to argue that she's currently sitting on my front lawn going nowhere, but even with the more moderate boats, when you start going smaller in motor, you start to go up in fuel consumption very quickly. Even my wee trailer towing Redback on her lightweight trailer, a Mouseboat strapped on as well with a second Mouseboat strapped on the roof takes quite an edge off the performance of my Falchoon. With a 2 litre something, while it'd still pull the load, I'd have to question how efficiently (and I can't see me feeding an eight foot boat onto the top of any of the vans I've owned).

I towed a largish caravan from Adelaide to Waikerie and back behind my 2l Tarago years ago. It did the job, but there was a hell of a price in petrol (and LPG on that one). Interestingly, that Tarago gave worse fuel economy than my current Falchoon which regularly tops 30mpg towing the trailer on the open road.

Now, with your suggestion of biodiesel etc. Those vehicles aren't available in a price range comparable with my dinosaur. See, I'm happy to agree that technology can provide me with a vehicle that will carry all the rubbish that seems to accompany me on my trips, along with all the neighbourhood kids I find myself carting to school, and will tow a ruddy great big boat as well. However, modern economics and 'market forces' and all that other good stuff mean that such vehicles are not available to me. I don't have the money to buy more than my second hand Falchoon.

Richard

bitingmidge

19th June 2006, 01:31 AM

Now Daddles, I'm trying to aim my shots at the whole of society, not you personally, but since you seem so ready to defend the attitudes which must be changed, let me respond! (Japan 0 Croatia 0 by the way)
A Bongo or any other van wouldn't do the job because I regularly carry five people ... And the reason you can't fit three rows of seats in is??? They are all able to be registered as buses you know.

And while most vehicles lose performance on LPG, my Falchoon doesn't seem to. There's probably a drop off in power, sure, but as far as distance per litre of the chosen brew goes, there's no real difference. Yes, it surprised me too, and this if the fourth vehicle I've owned with LPG, but them's the facts with my beastie. Same distance per litre eh? So you're not listening are you? A more efficient engine will go twice as far per litre!!!

A 2 litre? Will it tow my 18 foot Samar? I doubt it, even the Falchoon takes a deep breath with that one. Re-read my post above. My '76 Renault was 1.4 litre, front wheel drive and happily towed my Careel 18. Mind you, the engine only lasted 265,000 k's which was a bit of a disappointment.

Of course, you'd be right to argue that she's currently sitting on my front lawn going nowhere, but even with the more moderate boats, when you start going smaller in motor, you start to go up in fuel consumption very quickly. Yes you do, please read above, my fuel consumption went UP to one third of that of the Cruiser! Towing at highway speeds this is more related to wind resistance than rolling weight I think.

Even my wee trailer towing Redback on her lightweight trailer, a Mouseboat strapped on as well with a second Mouseboat strapped on the roof takes quite an edge off the performance of my Falchoon.
Thats' because the bloody thing has an engine that was basically designed in 1945, (although not because it loses any performance on gas eh ;) ?)

With a 2 litre something, while it'd still pull the load, I'd have to question how efficiently (and I can't see me feeding an eight foot boat onto the top of any of the vans I've owned). Maybe it's a long time since you checked out the torque figures of modern diesel engines.[/QUOTE]Now, with your suggestion of biodiesel etc. Those vehicles aren't available in a price range comparable with my dinosaur.

However, modern economics and 'market forces' and all that other good stuff mean that such vehicles are not available to me. I don't have the money to buy more than my second hand Falchoon.[/QUOTE]

As I said, I'm not picking on you, but as fuel gets more expensive, you won't have the money to drive the thing (gas notwithstanding). Second hand Merc vans are hitting the sub $10k range at the moment.... and I'm looking for one! (My 8 foot boats will fit IN one of those!)

Cheers,

P

Harry72

19th June 2006, 02:48 AM

Harry, it doesn't actually work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell

Well someone should tell the American Congress they've been had...
It does work, http://www.squizzle.com/movieview.asp?id=6648

Daddles

19th June 2006, 09:07 AM

Actually my good Midge, I believe YOU are the one that missed my point, that point (made a bit earlier and which led to the discussion of the reincarnation of Moby Dick) being that I have certain requirements and, thanks to our beloved business leaders and their subservience to the stock market, the Falchoon is the best answer to those requirements within my budget. As you have pointed out and as I myself pointed out only a few posts ago, with the state of technology in this world, this is ridiculous and a major reason why our planet is in the state it is.

Richard

gotcha :D

bitingmidge

19th June 2006, 11:02 AM

As you have pointed out and as I myself pointed out only a few posts ago, with the state of technology in this world, this is ridiculous and a major reason why our planet is in the state it is.

So it's not AWA's after all.... :confused: :confused: :confused:

P
:D

Grunt

19th June 2006, 05:41 PM

Harry, where is the reference that shows the U.S. congress is actually taking it seriously? These claims have been around since the ‘70s and all have been debunked. I’d really like to see some actual proof that this works.

Oh sure, we will run out of materials if we continue to use them at the same rate and dig them up at the same rate as we do today.

You example of copper, might be a good one.

Except that what copper is used for, most often transmitting power, can be replaced by various other things, depending on what that situation is.

Just about every electrical or electronic device uses copper. Please explain a way to move electricity from a power plant to the consumer that doesn’t use copper. Build me an electric motor that doesn’t use copper windings.

But what you missed Grunt, (again) is that all these doomsayers base their calculations on 'todays consumption' with 'todays technology'.

What is going to stop consumption? Serious recession/depression. Running out of raw materials, so we just can’t make the item or it’s just too damned expensive to bother.
Technology requires resources. We can’t make the raw materials.

We don't know what the heck will be invented/discovered next week.

Take the video camera I mentioned.

The old one would use up heaps of batteries, record images (but not very well), and used up enormous resources just by being old-tech.

The one we have now records longer, at higher quality, is much smaller, made largely from recycled materials and various other improvements as you would expect over 20 years.

I would think that in another 20 years the thing will record for a week, at eye-perfect quality and be the size of a matchbox.

It will still require aluminium, copper and oil.

With new technologies popping up all the time, old tech being constantly re-worked, todays consumption figures will prolly increase still, but at a reduced rate than the doomsayers predictions.

There is also a nifty little political model called 'capitalism'.

The short version of it is that 'if you can't afford it, then you go without'. Cold, harsh and tough, but it sorts the men out from the girls.

You are saying here is that everything is going to rosy, except for the boys and girls who can’t afford it. Technology will save the day.
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
The price increases will mean inflation. 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.

Also has a nifty habit of bringing prices closer to their proper value, if never quite hitting it just right. If they are too low today, they might just be too high tomorrow.

The will continue to rise. Even if demand stabilises. Supply will decrease.

And for extra credit, it also pushes technology to improve, because if your blue ipod is out of vogue, then the shinier, smaller and slicker red one might just replace it...

And ( ) use fewer resources doing it.

You do of course realize that it is advancing technology that got us into this pickle, right? If we had stuck to where we were 20 years ago, I don't think we would be in half the trouble we are now.

But the doomsayers forget that too...

I forgot that, silly me.

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?

Grunt

19th June 2006, 05:47 PM

Hyrogen as anm alternate to petrol is very feasible.

The biggest obstacle to hydrogen as a fuel is the Governments all around the world. They all tax petrol heavily for their own slush troughs.

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

So they''ll legislate against anything that don't fill the trough.

Hydrogen is at best a battry. The problem is how do you get hydrogen? There is lots of it in water but the task of separating hydrogen from water takes about as much energy as you get in the resulting hydrogen. It's really not worth it.

Hydrogen is also very difficult to store. Hydrogen molocule is the smallest around. It leaks to glass and rubber. It turns steel very brittle.