Thread: Nuclear Power - debate / poll

Don't Panic.

Morning NM, is that Professor Barbara (Freese), from CalTech? She, was my professor, in polution control and waste management, during my studies in Environmental Engineering, about 10 years ago.

Shorty.

Probably is in Germany, sounds, or should I say, looks Germanic. Not the same one though. This one is in Adelaide Uni. Originally from California.

Shorty.

Amory Lovins, "Nuclear Power: Economics and Climate-Protection Potential," Rocky Mountains Institute, September 11, 2005 reported that decentralised low-carbon and no-carbon sources of electricity are already producing more power globally than nuclear power plants without the subsidies that nuclear power depends on.
So why do people keep claiming we need nuclear?
The 2003 MIT study demonstrates that each 10 cents (US) spent to buy a single kWh of electricity could be used to generate 1.2 to 1.7 kWH of gas fired electricity or 2.2 to 6.5 kWh of co-generation from large industries.
So why do people perpetuate the myth that nuclear power is cheap? Even John Howard knows it is expensive.
The New Scientist, a well-respected scientific journal from the UK recently noted that although renewable electricity technologies are heavily criticised by the nuclear, coal and oil industies and by people influenced by the industry propoganda, the combination of wind power, tidal power, biomass, micro-hydro and others have made renewable ever more practical. Wind and biomass are already about as cheap as coal and a lot cheaper than nuclear.
The coal, oil and nuclear industries like to claim that renewables are not a practical solution yet renewables and co-generation are already producing more power globally than nuclear.
Why is it that some people are prepared to believe that science and technology will come up with some sort of miracle solution to the problem of waste from nuclear power stations, but dismiss the possibility of low-carbon and no-carbon forms of generation becoming more efficient? The fact is that in spite of the enormous funds spent trying to solve the problem of waste disposal, the nuclear industry has not made anywhere near the advances made in areas such as solar. Given the progress made in each area so far, I have more faith in the chances of continued progress in the development of renewables than in the chance of some progress actually being made in relation to waste disposal. In fact most renewables don't even need to make more progress; they are already working.
At the risk of repeating what I have said earlier, we need to solve the problem of global warming, but we don't need nuclear power to do it and there is even doubt about whether nuclear power could solve the problem.
Renewables and co-generation are already making a difference. Imagine the difference they could make if they attracted even a fraction of the subsidies the nuclear industry enjoys.

She's a debate alright, isn't it. I can't help wondering who finances the Rocky Mountain Institute. I am somewhat skeptical with "university tests". These tests are all sponsored, financially supported, by someone or some corporation. Don't for one second think that the funding body will release results that do not tally with the way they want things to be seen, or done. university tests only prove what the financial backers want proven.

That is that blue dyed water gets into chalk.



So far, about the only viable alternative technology, seems to be Bio-mass. The Jappanese have turned big time to Bio-mass, in almost all new subdevelopment. All refuse is collected and sorted by councils. It is then either, recycled if possible, used as solid fuel in local power stations (small scale conventional) and any nasties, are dealt with in the latest "best practice" disposal methods, usually high temerature incineration. The main Adelaide refuse tip, is speccifically designed and built as a Bio-mass system, around every 3 months or so, a new methane burning Gas turbine system is installed on each new pit. With even the greenies carrying on about wind and solar farms blocking their view or some such nonsense. What the ? are we the muddled masses supposed to even understand. All I know is, I don't relish the prospect of a new dark age, because somebody doesn't like the ideas being put forward. Too many I don't like its, and not enough brain power being actually applied to solving the problem. It wasn't for nothing that I studied this very subject, but, it was because of the loud arguments against every idea being considered, and none of the vocalists had any ideas at all, that I quit. At the same time, proving to my professors, that industry and all the conveniences it gives us will just plain close down. Because to try to appease the greenies and "clean up industry" will make manufacturing so expensive as to render it unviable. Nobody could afford to buy anything, so nothing will be manufactured any more. The shareholder will run, rather than give up the 20% for every dollar they expect as some sort of God given right.

But, what the hell would I know. I'm just a simple old sailor, mate. Even drive a LandRover because they are simple.

Shorty.

Originally Posted by shorty943

I am somewhat skeptical with "university tests".

Are you also skeptical about journals like The New Scientist?
I am pretty skeptical about a lot of things too. Sometimes we have to make judgements about the validity of information we are given based on such things as how well it is supported by other apparently reliable information and how likely it is that the source has a vested interest in presenting biased information. Peer review publications such as The Lancet and hundreds of other scientific journals probably have a better chance of being able to substantiate their claims. After all that is partly what peer review is for.

New Scientist? Oh hell yeah! Question everything, even the questions, they may be misleading to. You know, the old trick question, no matter your answer, the question has already misconstrued it.
Just like J W Howards game with the constitutional referendum a few years back. The question, so carefully loaded, that no matter which way you answered, little Johnny Winston got only the answer he wanted.

Or is that being just toooo skeptical?

Shorty.

Unsure on this one, have not researched it to be honest