Are we being conned about Global Warming part 2

I have said this before. The biggest polluters are heavy industry through power consumption. The only realistic energy source for large scale, base load power generation anywhere in the world is nuclear power. The sooner we get that, and the sooner we start to develop proper safe nuclear power stations, the sooner we will bring down carbon based pollution.

All the other options are either bit players, regionally suitable only (solar will never work in Belgium, for instance), or unable to provide reliable baseload electricity. Many are also environmental disasters. Have you ever thought of the visual pollution of enough wind farms to make even a relatively small contribution? Or the effect on wildlife and fauna of large scale solar power installations? Or of the effect on our coastlines of large scale wave generators? And you'd still have to supplement them with either coal or nuclear power stations!

The irony of it is, is that most of those making so much noise about greenhouse gas emissions don't want to see nuclear power!

Nuclear power is safe - nuclear weapons are not, but we're not talking about nuclear weapons. And super powers have nuclear weapons anyway, even while we are not having the benefit of nuclear power!

I say bring on nuclear power. And nuclear fuel recycling. Let us as human race put our minds to developing this abundant source of energy properly.

Willem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willem

I have said this before. The biggest polluters are heavy industry through power consumption. The only realistic energy source for large scale, base load power generation anywhere in the world is nuclear power. The sooner we get that, and the sooner we start to develop proper safe nuclear power stations, the sooner we will bring down carbon based pollution.

All the other options are either bit players, regionally suitable only (solar will never work in Belgium, for instance), or unable to provide reliable baseload electricity. Many are also environmental disasters. Have you ever thought of the visual pollution of enough wind farms to make even a relatively small contribution? Or the effect on wildlife and fauna of large scale solar power installations? Or of the effect on our coastlines of large scale wave generators? And you'd still have to supplement them with either coal or nuclear power stations!

The irony of it is, is that most of those making so much noise about greenhouse gas emissions don't want to see nuclear power!

Nuclear power is safe - nuclear weapons are not, but we're not talking about nuclear weapons. And super powers have nuclear weapons anyway, even while we are not having the benefit of nuclear power!

I say bring on nuclear power. And nuclear fuel recycling. Let us as human race put our minds to developing this abundant source of energy properly.

Willem

---

during the next 100 years we will hopefully see nuclear fusion perfected as a power source (non-polluting, unlimited source material, limited waste)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willem

I have said this before. The biggest polluters are heavy industry through power consumption. The only realistic energy source for large scale, base load power generation anywhere in the world is nuclear power. The sooner we get that, and the sooner we start to develop proper safe nuclear power stations, the sooner we will bring down carbon based pollution.

All the other options are either bit players, regionally suitable only (solar will never work in Belgium, for instance), or unable to provide reliable baseload electricity. Many are also environmental disasters. Have you ever thought of the visual pollution of enough wind farms to make even a relatively small contribution? Or the effect on wildlife and fauna of large scale solar power installations? Or of the effect on our coastlines of large scale wave generators? And you'd still have to supplement them with either coal or nuclear power stations!

The irony of it is, is that most of those making so much noise about greenhouse gas emissions don't want to see nuclear power!

Nuclear power is safe - nuclear weapons are not, but we're not talking about nuclear weapons. And super powers have nuclear weapons anyway, even while we are not having the benefit of nuclear power!

I say bring on nuclear power. And nuclear fuel recycling. Let us as human race put our minds to developing this abundant source of energy properly.

Willem

---

I think this is a pretty good example of one persons opinion clouding the facts.

As far as the statement that “nuclear power is safe” I think is far from reality as this Accident list will confirm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willem

I have said this before. The biggest polluters are heavy industry through power consumption. The only realistic energy source for large scale, base load power generation anywhere in the world is nuclear power. The sooner we get that, and the sooner we start to develop proper safe nuclear power stations, the sooner we will bring down carbon based pollution.

All the other options are either bit players, regionally suitable only (solar will never work in Belgium, for instance), or unable to provide reliable baseload electricity. Many are also environmental disasters. Have you ever thought of the visual pollution of enough wind farms to make even a relatively small contribution? Or the effect on wildlife and fauna of large scale solar power installations? Or of the effect on our coastlines of large scale wave generators? And you'd still have to supplement them with either coal or nuclear power stations!

The irony of it is, is that most of those making so much noise about greenhouse gas emissions don't want to see nuclear power!

Nuclear power is safe - nuclear weapons are not, but we're not talking about nuclear weapons. And super powers have nuclear weapons anyway, even while we are not having the benefit of nuclear power!

I say bring on nuclear power. And nuclear fuel recycling. Let us as human race put our minds to developing this abundant source of energy properly.

Willem

---

If "green power" is the way to go then why do the power companies charge more for this than coal produced power? I know it is cheaper to produce but if they gave people who had a grid connected solar array on their house a cheaper power bill tarrif then that would encourage others to put in grid connected solar.

Forget stand alone units. The technology with batteries is as yet not sustainable. Just the production of the batteries and their eventual disposal is more polluting than the coal fired alternative.

What are we about to get with this proposed carbon emissions trading legislation, higher priced everything and lots more unemployment. But don't worry, our contribution will make a huge difference to the world's climate and the people in India and China with their clean power consumption will thank us by producing cheaper goods to put even more Australian businesses to the wall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drivesafe

I think this is a pretty good example of one persons opinion clouding the facts.

As far as the statement that “nuclear power is safe” I think is far from reality as this Accident list will confirm.

---

16 accidents in nearly 60 years! And most of those accidents with old, first generation nuclear power plants. Some of them not even to do with power generation - a nuclear sub does not count as a power generation plant.

The only fair thing would be to compare this with the accidents in coal fired power generation plants. I don't have the figures handy, but it would be an interesting comparison. I used to work in Collie in Western Australia, where there were both the coal mines and the power station using the coal. Their safety record wasn't perfect, I can tell you!

I think you will find that nuclear power safety record is pretty good, compared to other methods.

I reckon there's a little bit of pot and kettle here, drivesafe, old chap!

Willem

As the Russian government has never admitted to the real number of people who died as a result of Chernobyl, I think you would be hard pushed to find anything like the cost let alone the lost of life in anything related to fossil fuel use.

I don’t support the continuing unrestricted use of fossil fuel but to say nuclear energy is safer is just the stuff of fairy tales, especially when you consider that the waste is lethal for at least 10,000 years for the waste of a product that had a useful life of about 20 years.

It just doesn't make sense and seems a tad selfish to saddle our children’s children for the next 500 generations, with the responsibility of looking after your waste.

Tim,Nuclear Waste can be safely managed , It's all to do with the
Proper management of this nuclear waste ,and Im not talking about
burying in at the bottom of the ocean. Have a look at the Swedes
that have constructed a deposit some 500m underground, where
the fuel can be permanently stored.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...009/06/476.jpg


"they will encase the waste in 5cm-thick copper canisters, to protect
against corrosion," "Then, encase the cylinders in bentonite clay. It's
basically like cat sand; it absorbs humidity very efficiently, and swells when wet."
After all nuclear waste has been stored, the site would be filled in, and
safe enough to be left without human intervention until the radiation risk has gone

Without really entering into the argument about nuclear safety, it is worth pointing out that deaths from coal mining over the last sixty years would far exceed the death toll from nuclear accidents, even if you include Cherobyl. In China alone, for example, coal mining deaths have totalled around 45,000 since 2000, and the US has around 4,000 new cases of black lung per year, and China around 10,000, just to give a few figures.

And you should also note that coal fired power puts more radioactive waste into the environment (mainly from K40) than does nuclear power, albeit very low level - but worth considering if you think there is no safe level of radiation.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willem

16 accidents in nearly 60 years! And most of those accidents with old, first generation nuclear power plants. Some of them not even to do with power generation - a nuclear sub does not count as a power generation plant.

The only fair thing would be to compare this with the accidents in coal fired power generation plants. I don't have the figures handy, but it would be an interesting comparison. I used to work in Collie in Western Australia, where there were both the coal mines and the power station using the coal. Their safety record wasn't perfect, I can tell you!

I think you will find that nuclear power safety record is pretty good, compared to other methods.

I reckon there's a little bit of pot and kettle here, drivesafe, old chap!

Willem

---

That is all fine and nuclear power is probablly one of the viable long term options once perfected a little more. For starters countries like Australia do not have the techniccal personel to run them and we would struggle to attract techs from overseas. Then there is the issue of where to locate them. Can you honestly say you would be happy to have it built in your neighbourhood?:o Would you also be happy to have the waste buried at your local tip?:o Most people would not and as the case has been want it somwhere else. Just look at what they wanted to do to WA, near where I used to live. At this point in time WA do nt produce Uranium (though that is set to change). We were expected to take all the waste from around the world. What a joke. The country that refines the yellow cake and then uses it in their refineries should also dispos of it as they are the ones that create the hazzardous waste product not the miner. As a secondary option it should be returned back to where it was mined, ot just to an isolated area near Kalgoorlie, just because the populous in the eastern states that benefit from it do not want it near them. If you want the benefits then you have to also take the associated costs.

Hi Disco_owner, while the Swedish “solution” is an improvement, it is still little more than hiding the problem.

If we were to stop using fossil fuels tomorrow, in less than 50 years, all pollution and other environmental effects will have ceased.

One more point that gets conveniently overlooked when ever the so called perceived advantages of using nuclear power are floated, is that nuclear power generation is one of the most expensive forms of power generation and requires massive government investment to make it viable and this cost does not include the enormous waste storage cost.

This, more so than any environmental risks, is probably the main reason there have been no new plants built in the USA in nearly 30 years.