You think Australia has a Nuclear Future

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodbe

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodbe

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grunt

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!)

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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

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.

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. 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodbe

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??

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mic-d

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.

.

Quote:

---

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??

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocker

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

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