9524 replies to this topic

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Thanks for that Bill. Religion is very diverse.

Indeed. Which one is right?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

The equipment and method used by the Egyptians, the guys with the thermometer and what is used today would not be the same, so to say we have DIRECT ACCURATE temperature measurements is not right. We are
talking about a rise of a couple of degrees that is easily lost in error of measurement.

Bollocks. The ice core data has been cross-checked for accuracy against instrumental measurements. The Egyptians, like most ancient peoples, were in tune with their environment (which they needed to be). Their record keeping was vital for successful crop growth. They may not have used thermometers (I never claimed they did), but they kept excellent records of their climate conditions.

[surfpurple]

Indeed. Which one is right?

No one can say which is 'right'.

[surfpurple]

Unlike the science surrounding AGW. There is almost universal concensus that AGW theory is valid.

With the emphasis on 'ALMOST' !

[proftournesol]

With the emphasis on 'ALMOST' !

No, there is a consensus. A consensus doesn't require unanimous agreement otherwise there would never be a consensus on anything.

[surfpurple]

OK

[surfpurple]

So if the earth's temperature has been rising for hundreds of years then it has to be a natural 'cycle'. We are trying to slow down the more rapid rise (as the scientists say), but it could be seen as a 'baind-aid' attempt, if the earth is heading that way anyway!

Man-kind isn't going to stop mother nature, if that is the direction which she is taking us!

[proftournesol]

There are a lot of inputs into climate, some positive some negative, and of course we have no control over these. There is one that consensus suggests is man-made and it's of great concern because unlike the natural inputs it's going to result in a very rapid change that will cause major ecosystem disruption. Slower cycles of change lead to adaptation, not disruption. Given that this input is man-made, we can minimise it's effects by changing some aspects of our behaviour.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

So if the earth's temperature has been rising for hundreds of years then it has to be a natural 'cycle'.

No. Normally, the temperature rise that has been noted in the past has occured over TENS OF THOUSANDS of years. We are witnessing a similar rise that has taken around 100 years.

Look at these graphs:

http://www.daviesand...nning/New_Data/

http://www.daviesand...Look/index.html

We are trying to slow down the more rapid rise (as the scientists say), but it could be seen as a 'baind-aid' attempt, if the earth is heading that way anyway!

The IPCC has examined all the known influences of warming on this planet. The only one left is excessive CO2 level.

Man-kind isn't going to stop mother nature, if that is the direction which she is taking us!

Indeed. However, it is clear to the scientists, that it is humans that are driving this unprecedented rise in temperature.

[kdoot]

Dr Dennis Jensen.

It strikes me as strange that the solution the Gillard government has enacted to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is simply to impose a tax. The reality is, in order to achieve reductions, real alternatives are required. For baseload power supplies in Australia, the only alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power.

You need only look at the penetration of renewable energy supplies in the world market to see that these are not genuine alternatives, they are simply wishware. Take away generous subsidies for the renewables sector, and the picture is even worse.

The reality is that, by 2020, by the government's own figures, our carbon dioxide emissions will increase by more than 5 per cent; the ''reductions'' are ''achieved'' by the purchase of carbon credits from overseas. This is simply smoke and mirrors, the reality is that our emissions go up.

Nuclear power is a genuine, economic and technical alternative (if it were not economic, why go to the lengths of applying a legislative ban to its generating electricity, as no generator would go this way on a level playing field?). I also find it strange that the Labor government believes that it is fine to export a fuel for a method of generating electricity that is deemed, by this government, as too dangerous for Australia. This stance is irresponsible, illogical, hypocritical and incredibly unethical and immoral; if nuclear power is that bad, the sale of uranium overseas should be banned.

In conclusion, if this government is to be consistent in a policy sense, it should move to remove the legislative ban on nuclear power.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1qItqgInT

Well f**k me... I wholeheartedly agree with something that DENNIS JENSEN wrote. That's going to take some getting used to.

Only the Greens truly appreciate the value of the natural environment, but only the extreme right Liberals are willing to talk about the only technology that stands a chance of saving the environment from us.

ZB, Prof, I love what you guys are doing here but why can't you see that wind and solar and efficiency and humungoush voluntary social upheaval is just not going to be accepted by the majority of humanity? You're right, in an ideal sense, but you are blind to the fact that too many people don't, and won't, agree with you. There will be no great enlightenment, no gentler path, no low-energy hyper-efficient utopia magically emerging in the next 20 years. People, on the whole, are just too lazy and self-interested for that to happen.

The only option for giving humanity the energy it demands while getting GHG under control is nuclear. And honestly, we've got far more chance of safely managing nuclear technology than we do of convincing the world to change its deep-rooted value systems.

[proftournesol]

But kdoot you're taking about alternative energies as if they are a theoretical solution for the future using untested technology. Alternative technologies aren't 'alternative' they are mainstream solutions used every day by millions of people all over the planet today. China is the world's largest producer of PV, yes they also use an awful lot of coal now but they see a viable mainstream future for renewables and are rapidly developing a leading position on the front of the wave (where we used to be before Howard) where all the profits will be. The US is building GW worth of concentrated solar and PV and all this is happening without major social upheaval. Part of the FUD spread by the fossil fuel industry is this spectre of major upheaval as every coal station is switched off overnight and we suddenly face massive long term power shortages. Nobody apart from the straw men are proposing that scenario, that is precisely what we want to avoid by acting now. Even if we decided to go 100% nuclear it would still take 20 years for a viable large scale nuclear industry, what do we do in the meantime? In any case renewable power will look very cheap compared to nuclear power

[MC240]

The sun provides more energy than we could ever possibly use, man has just got figure an efficiently way to convert and store it. Plants have managed to.

[kdoot]

The sun provides more energy than we could ever possibly use, man has just got figure an efficiently way to convert and store it. Plants have managed to.

The problem isn't quantity, it's density.

But kdoot you're taking about alternative energies as if they are a theoretical solution for the future using untested technology. Alternative technologies aren't 'alternative' they are mainstream solutions used every day by millions of people all over the planet today. China is the world's largest producer of PV, yes they also use an awful lot of coal now but they see a viable mainstream future for renewables and are rapidly developing a leading position on the front of the wave (where we used to be before Howard) where all the profits will be. The US is building GW worth of concentrated solar and PV and all this is happening without major social upheaval. Part of the FUD spread by the fossil fuel industry is this spectre of major upheaval as every coal station is switched off overnight and we suddenly face massive long term power shortages. Nobody apart from the straw men are proposing that scenario, that is precisely what we want to avoid by acting now. Even if we decided to go 100% nuclear it would still take 20 years for a viable large scale nuclear industry, what do we do in the meantime? In any case renewable power will look very cheap compared to nuclear power

Renewables are great, and they make a valuable contribution (roughly 4kWh today from the array on my roof, plus demand reduction from my solar hot water system), but they are hopelessly insufficient to meet humanity's demands. It's that simple. On the scale we require, in the time we have available, we cannot wean ourselves from coal, oil and gas without massive deployment of nuclear energy.

China knows this - that's why their coal and nuclear build-out makes their renewables look like backyard hobbyist projects by comparison.

What should we do in the meantime?
1. Put the fossil fuel industry on notice. Ban new expansion and implement progressive cut-backs.
2. Take advantage of every sensible renewable energy option that exists.
3. Continue to promote efficiency.
4. Invest like crazy in new nuclear, wherever possible just taking coal burners offline and replacing them with nuclear-powered turbines connected to the same generating equipment.

And don't give me the "unproven technology" or "uranium is a finite resource" lines. The science behind modern nuclear (including "fast" reactors that extract the roughly 98% of energy still remaining in existing nuclear waste as fuel, and molten-salt thorium reactors which could run for 30 years on one semi-trailer-load of a metal that's so common it's considered a nuisance) is at least as well proven as the science behind AGW itself, and the engineering for initial fast reactors is already done courtesy of the Russians, Chinese, and even the Americans. The only factors really impeding a nuclear build-out are political and industrial.

[MC240]

The problem isn't quantity, it's density.

[/left]

Yeah I agree can be very difficult to get a simple message across to the dense.

[proftournesol]

but kdoot we have no nuclear industry here no infrastructure, no scientists no re-processing or long-term storage. Even if there were solutions to that the strongest advocates of nuclear power see 20 years before the first reactor could be operational, and that was before the Japanese disaster. What do we do in the meantime?

[kdoot]

Yeah I agree can be very difficult to get a simple message across to the dense.

OK, so I'm going to ignore what appears to be the insult in that comment, and recognise that I didn't explain myself in any detail. It's fair that you might want an explanation of my position.

Plants do a remarkable job capturing solar energy and converting it to stored chemical energy. They're far better at it than we are with our technology. It's a beautiful, admirable thing that they do.

But in terms of raw numbers, of actual mathematically considered quantities of energy, you come to this conclusion: they capture energy far, far slower than we humans would like to use it. How many millions of years worth of stored plant energy in oil and coal have we burned our way through in just a couple of centuries? What quantity of plant tissue does an individual human need to eat just to survive, and what area of vegetation (and associated ecosystem services) is required to sustain that? It's rather a lot, and that's just for survival - the amount of land and vegetation and ecosystem services needed to power our modern industrial lifestyle is far larger still. Even if you use algae farms to capture that energy you're talking about a mindbogglingly huge amount of plant material (and water and nutrients) to harness energy at the rate required to power one modern human life.

Maybe we can substitute manufactured technology instead of plants, but again the scale of the required resource is just vast. We'd be destroying whole ecosystems just to deploy our solar panels. No, urban rooftops aren't sufficient.

Contrast this to nuclear power. A piece of thorium roughly the size of a golf ball contains enough stored nuclear energy to power your whole life, even at modern western standards of living. Think about that for a bit.

[kdoot]

but kdoot we have no nuclear industry here no infrastructure, no scientists no re-processing or long-term storage. Even if there were solutions to that the strongest advocates of nuclear power see 20 years before the first reactor could be operational, and that was before the Japanese disaster. What do we do in the meantime?

Fukushima - bad as it is - is only barely relevant in the bigger scheme of things and only peripherally in this conversation.

Why do you ignore the fact that I endorse the continued development and deployment of renewable energy technology, and energy efficiency? I even put my money where my mouth is, choosing energy-efficent appliances, standing strong in the face of my wife's complaints about having only one fridge which is too small for her liking, strictly limiting the use of the one air conditioner in our house (which is sometimes required for health reasons), never ever using space heating, replacing "family" cars with small-engined diesel models, buying carbon offsets for the air travel emissions required in my job, purchasing little, recycling just about everything, composting, keeping chooks and mowing as infrequently as I can get away with. ETC.

"In the meantime", we should do all those things I listed prior to the nuclear aspect. BUT THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH for the world. In Australia we are blessed with more sunshine than most places on earth, and some great geothermal resources, and I hope we can make use of those. BUT THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH. Nothing but nuclear can provide the sheer quantity of GHG-free energy that our (adjective deleted) fellow humans demand as their birthright.

[surfpurple]

No. Normally, the temperature rise that has been noted in the past has occured over TENS OF THOUSANDS of years. We are witnessing a similar rise that has taken around 100 years.

Look at these graphs:

http://www.daviesand...nning/New_Data/

http://www.daviesand...Look/index.html






The IPCC has examined all the known influences of warming on this planet. The only one left is excessive CO2 level.


Indeed. However, it is clear to the scientists, that it is humans that are driving this unprecedented rise in temperature.

That is debateable. The rise in temperature has been occurring before industrialisation!

I can look at all the graphs and data that YOU direct me to.
But that is evidence that YOU want to show.
There is other evidence that opposes YOUR evidence!

Edited by surfpurple, 28 March 2012 - 07:11 PM.

[MC240]

OK, so I'm going to ignore what appears to be the insult in that comment,

kdoot once again the nuances of a well meaning oneliner have gone astray, lets put it down to the nature of a forum where one can not see the manner in which the line was delivered. Mate I wouldn't intentionally insult you or anyone else on the forum straight off the bat, after a prolonged confrontation maybe.In short I was only kidding.

I think your missing my point if plants can do the job of converting the suns energy with zero technology then what could we do if we stared thinking beyond today's technology and invested the financial and intellectual resources in finding the solution. Ok I'm a dreamer, but what if.

[kdoot]

kdoot once again the nuances of a well meaning oneliner have gone astray, lets put it down to the nature of a forum where one can not see the manner in which the line was delivered. Mate I wouldn't intentionally insult you or anyone else on the forum straight off the bat, after a prolonged confrontation maybe.In short I was only kidding.

OK, no worries. Glad to hear it!

I think your missing my point if plants can do the job of converting the suns energy with zero technology then what could we do if we stared thinking beyond today's technology and invested the financial and intellectual resources in finding the solution. Ok I'm a dreamer, but what if.

The laws of physics have this nasty habit of preventing dreams from becoming reality. I had this awesome dream when I was a kid - I could fly!

Sorry MC, but it is what it is. We're doing this in parallel threads, unintentionally, but I gave some numbers over there to help explain my case. "What if" just doesn't cut it when it comes to saving the world from ourselves.

[proftournesol]

Fukushima - bad as it is - is only barely relevant in the bigger scheme of things and only peripherally in this conversation.

Why do you ignore the fact that I endorse the continued development and deployment of renewable energy technology, and energy efficiency? I even put my money where my mouth is, choosing energy-efficent appliances, standing strong in the face of my wife's complaints about having only one fridge which is too small for her liking, strictly limiting the use of the one air conditioner in our house (which is sometimes required for health reasons), never ever using space heating, replacing "family" cars with small-engined diesel models, buying carbon offsets for the air travel emissions required in my job, purchasing little, recycling just about everything, composting, keeping chooks and mowing as infrequently as I can get away with. ETC.

"In the meantime", we should do all those things I listed prior to the nuclear aspect. BUT THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH for the world. In Australia we are blessed with more sunshine than most places on earth, and some great geothermal resources, and I hope we can make use of those. BUT THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH. Nothing but nuclear can provide the sheer quantity of GHG-free energy that our (adjective deleted) fellow humans demand as their birthright.

I'm not ignoring it but why do you think that we will still need nuclear power with 20 years of development of renewable energy options? The most likely option is that we will need a range of technologies suited to local conditions, it may even include some gas or even coal as we don't need zero CO2 emission reduction, only to reduce it well below the ecosystem's ability to remove it from the atmosphere.

There's little likelihood of any advanced economy accepting new nuclear plants although they'll continue to be commissioned in countries with debatable safety records. The dilemma here is not only is nuclear the most expensive energy option of all the available options but it requires massive investment to establish. No private industry will touch it and nobody will insure it for anything below mega monopoly money. This is all money that will be diverted from other renewable technologies, taken out from the existing energy infrastructure maintenance, or will have to be funded in the form of a great big new mega-tax on the consumer.

[MC240]

OK, no worries. Glad to hear it!



The laws of physics have this nasty habit of preventing dreams from becoming reality. I had this awesome dream when I was a kid - I could fly!

Sorry MC, but it is what it is. We're doing this in parallel threads, unintentionally, but I gave some numbers over there to help explain my case. "What if" just doesn't cut it when it comes to saving the world from ourselves.

Ok I'll stick to posting here.

I appreciate the laws of physics.I don't see the LOP as the limitation, the only limitation is in the way in which we choose exploit those laws.

There was nothing wrong with your awesome dream as a child that you could fly, the only problem was your thought processes that couldn't exploit the LOP sufficiently to achieve your dream. What if, worked for Orville and Wilbur. If we keep doing what we've always done then nothing will ever change

I also had a dream of flying as a child, I talked a test pilot (or crash test dummy aka my younger brother) into jumping of the shed with an umbrella Mary Poppins style, it ended badly for the both of us.

Edited by MC240, 28 March 2012 - 09:33 PM.

[kdoot]

why do you think that we will still need nuclear power with 20 years of development of renewable energy options? The most likely option is that we will need a range of technologies suited to local conditions

What kind of magic do you hope 20 years is going to bring in terms of renewables? Whether we're talking about solar, or wind, or wave, or geothermal, or biomass... the theoretical limits of all of those are pretty well understood and based on the numbers they aren't able to provide enough power for the world's demands. We can reduce the demand significantly through efficiency but there is still a huge gap, especially when transport needs are taken into account. There will be some regions with good renewable resources and a willing populace which will become fossil-free for their direct energy needs, but they'll still be importing goods and services from much more energy-intensive industries in an economy that, as a whole, demands an energy supply that renewables can't possibly match - at least not in the timeframe we need to be dealing with.

Nothing but nuclear provides the energy density, the consistent supply and the ability to slot in place of existing generation and distribution infrastructure.

it may even include some gas or even coal as we don't need zero CO2 emission reduction, only to reduce it well below the ecosystem's ability to remove it from the atmosphere.

I thought Hanson and McKibben and others were talking about the need to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere. 350ppm is the number, and we're already pushing 500.

There's little likelihood of any advanced economy accepting new nuclear plants

The US has just approved new work. The UK is (wisely!) considering a PRISM reactor to consume their plutonium stockpile. Japan's emotional recoil is settling down and there's pragmatic talk about restarting some of their shut-down reactors (not the Fukushima ones; elsewhere). A lot of people in developed countries are starting to realise that the anti-war movement from the 60s and 70s overstepped the mark by demonising the civilian forms of nuclear technology. (Of course, militaries back then were overstepping the mark by justifying their weapons programs with a facade of public utility.) The fact is that nuclear CAN be done in a safe, clean and unsuitable-for-weapons way.

although they'll continue to be commissioned in countries with debatable safety records.

Please, please take an open-minded look at modern nuclear technology. Unlike the systems that came to prominence in the 60's, which were all born of a weapons program mentality, today's designs have safety and reliability as their most critical feature. A number of them are "walk-away safe" - if something interrupts their normal operation, the laws of physics cause them to shut down calmly. Most are now also designed to withstand a direct impact from a 747-class aircraft. Fast reactors and MSRs etc don't produce waste anything like the old style reactors. It truly is a different game.

The dilemma here is not only is nuclear the most expensive energy option of all the available options but it requires massive investment to establish. No private industry will touch it and nobody will insure it for anything below mega monopoly money. This is all money that will be diverted from other renewable technologies, taken out from the existing energy infrastructure maintenance, or will have to be funded in the form of a great big new mega-tax on the consumer.

The risk factor is mostly due to excessive political and legal impediments which the anti-war-turned-environmental movement has succeeded in erecting over the past 50 years. Few of them have anything to do with practical engineering or construction issues.

Nuclear does require a chunk of up-front capital but fuel costs are close to nothing. A LFTR would run for 30 years on a single truckload of inert, naturally-occuring mildly-radioactive thorium metal, which is about as abundant as lead and which is discarded as waste from mining rare-earth minerals. Fast reactors can consume existing nuclear waste and plutonium stockpiles. And these newer, smarter designs are also being optimised for modular mass-production, reducing their capital burden a whole lot.

Choose the appropriate technology in context. Use renewables where it makes sense. But don't be naive: environmentalism has largely - tragically - failed to stop the tidal wave of humanity coming to utterly dominate the planet. We, as a whole, are not going to change our behaviour. Look at the current state of Australian and US and Canadian politics - the left/right divide is growing wider, with no sign of a rush to the left. Around half the western world is stubbornly opposed to doing ANYTHING about GHG emissions - you can pry their air conditioner remote controls out of their cold, dead hands after you've run them over with their V8 truck. And much of the developing world is either too uneducated to really understand the big picture or too resentful of the way we've left them behind that they don't much give a damn either: they're going to take the energy and other resources they want by whatever means they can.

We have no option, for the most part, but to give them what they want. Which is more energy, not less. Renewables alone ARE NOT SUFFICIENT for the task. Nothing but nuclear can replace all the coal, all the oil and all the gas without compromises that people are not willing to make.

Having massive energy resources at extremely low cost (a la LFTR etc) makes it economically feasible to recycle much more. To clean effluent to a higher standard. To grow food in high-rise hydroponic artificially-lit city farm buildings. It takes away the land use pressures from biofuel crops. It makes coal mining uneconomical. Having more energy, cleanly, reliably, is the best thing that could happen to the planet.

[davidsss]

KDoot why can't you see that nuclear and the humungoush (sic) waste, proliferation and safety problems are just not going to be accepted by the majority of humanity?

Thorium reactors, yea, heard that one before. Nice idea, maybe one day, but today: they do not exist. Compare this to renewables: solar PV: exists today, solar collecting: exists today, wind turbines: exist today, geothermal: exists today, hydro: exists today. Bit like 4th generation nuclear fission reactors, again tomorrow's technology. What really s**ts me about this argument about future nuclear technology is the way the nuclear industry has been bleating for 50 years about how renewables are tomorrow's technology, yet now the shoe is on the other foot it seems that not-yet-developed technology is fine for the nuclear industry to spruik. Bunch of hypocrites.

The nuclear industry should not be trusted to build any power generation until they can find a way to safely store the waste they have created over the last 50 years. They have left us with a toxic legacy which will last thousands of years.

I could ask you 'why' don't you believe in 'religion'. For if man has believed in religion for thousands of years, and every corner of the globe has 'believers' and churches, then what is your basis for not believing? (because it can't be proven with science?)

I have only one comment on religion, it is a visual comment:



Anyway this is a thread about climate change, which is science, not religion, so I won't comment on that any more.

There are many arguments that contradict the evidence of global warming, some are being talked about right now (by people who know a lot more than I do), and I am saying (as I have every right to) that I don't necessarily believe all the evidence (of only a hundred years or so).

Which of these arguments which contradict the evidence of climate change lead you to disbelieve the evidence?

Actually I should comment here, your choice of words is actually very revealing. You believe an argument over evidence. Personally, given the choice between an argument and some evidence (assuming they are contradictory) I'll take the evidence thanks. Wasn't it Keynes who said something to the effect that if evidence contradicts my arguments I change my arguments?

As I have said before, 'we will have to agree to disagree'.

Until you actually state what your reservations are and what your view is that would be impossible. Can't disagree with someone who won't state what their view is.

DS

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

That is debateable. The rise in temperature has been occurring before industrialisation!

No, it has not. Look at the graphs.

I can look at all the graphs and data that YOU direct me to.
But that is evidence that YOU want to show.
There is other evidence that opposes YOUR evidence!

Cite this alleged alternative evidence.

[kdoot]

KDoot why can't you see that nuclear and the humungoush (sic) waste, proliferation and safety problems are just not going to be accepted by the majority of humanity?

David, let go of the 60's. We've all rejected those problems and the era that brought them. In the intervening decades, scientists and engineers have chipped away at the task of freeing nuclear energy technology from its military roots. The best of today's technology just does not have problems with waste, proliferation or safety - but the environmental movement appears ideologically opposed to unlocking energy for humanity; or perhaps it has just gotten intellectually and emotionally stuck, a kind of PTSD hanging over from the terrors of the cold war.

Thorium reactors, yea, heard that one before. Nice idea, maybe one day, but today: they do not exist.

One did exist, and it proved the concept, before it was shut down by the cold war generals due to not being dangerous enough. Russia has operated a fast-spectrum reactor for many years, and now they've commenced a commercial build-out program with China. If you (the traditional environmental movement) honestly believe that climate change an existential threat for much of the biosphere (as I do) then please get your outdated closed-minded reality-defying politics out of the way so that people can work efficiently on solving the engineering and practical challenges that allow you to say "today they do not exist".

Compare this to renewables: solar PV: exists today, solar collecting: exists today, wind turbines: exist today, geothermal: exists today, hydro: exists today.

You forgot the energy storage bit, which inconveniently does not exist in any practical sense. And the part about how all of those things combined can't produce enough energy to meet demand. We do need them - we need everything that isn't fossil fuels - but you're deluding yourself if you think that renewables alone can do the job.

Bit like 4th generation nuclear fission reactors, again tomorrow's technology.

Russia. China. Today. Because they aren't hobbled by political activists clinging to outdated dogma.

What really s**ts me about this argument about future nuclear technology is the way the nuclear industry has been bleating for 50 years about how renewables are tomorrow's technology, yet now the shoe is on the other foot it seems that not-yet-developed technology is fine for the nuclear industry to spruik. Bunch of hypocrites.

Hey, I'm a lefty by nature. Big industry people, especially the resources sector, tend to "s**t me" also. Many such people have featured in the military/nuclear establishment and much criticism is deserved. But guess what? It's not the big industry people behind the push for Gen-IV or LFTR, it's serious, sincere, passionate people who mourn the squandered opportunity for humanity caused by the militarisation and demonisation of technology which could have been done right the first time.

The biggest changes in renewable technology have been about getting production costs down, and some good work on efficiency. But with modern nuclear we are talking about substantially different technology to what was deployed in the past.

The nuclear industry should not be trusted to build any power generation until they can find a way to safely store the waste they have created over the last 50 years. They have left us with a toxic legacy which will last thousands of years.

That's ridiculous. Why insist on keeping it when nuclear engineers are offering to extract the remaining ~98% of energy from it, and eliminate long-lived waste completely!? Stop the unthinking, in-grained, knee-jerk opposition to anything that involves nuclear technology and get out of the way of people who are, just like you, trying to make the world a better place.

[proftournesol]

kdoot, ets look at just the economic factors at play here. Nuclear power is currently not cost competitive with renewables yet alone fossil fuel generated power, how is it going to be able to compete in the marketplace with renewables that will have had a further 20 years of development by the time the first nuclear plant is commissioned? Look at how the cost of household PV has dropped since you and I installed it, it's cost effective without subsidies now. Many pages back I posted an article that reported that in unelectrified villages in India PV is already (2012) the cheapest way to provide electricity, imagine 20 years of further development and the economies of scale. Concentrated solar is already providing reliable 24 hour power in Spain and there are plans to introduce many more similar plants, imagine how cheap this power will be in 20 years? There are plans to build the deserted project in North Africa that alone will provide 15% of EU and North Africa's power requirements. France may well hold onto it's nuclear power as in the typical French fashion they'll see it as a national sovereignty issue, however how is nuclear ever going to be able to compete economically without massive subsidies from the taxpayer?

[ayou2]

REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT*

(Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992)


"Annex I

RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT


The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development"

"Principle 15
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

And thats what its all about ... they don't have to prove anything. Ring the alarmist bells & commence the green agenda.

[proftournesol]

ayou2 I'm wondering if you have any house or car insurance? Did you refuse to take out a policy until someone proved to you beyond any doubt with 100% cast iron guaranteed certainty that you absolutely would be burgled or that someone would definitely crash into your car or did you accept the high likelihood that this was likely at some stage despite the 'lack of full scientific certainty' and decide to take a 'precautionary approach' and insure yourself?

[proftournesol]

kdoot incidentally Japan currently has only 1 functioning reactor, all the rest are closed indefinitely for 'maintenance'. Now this may be temporary but there's little mood in Japan to reactivate them. Expect Japan to suddenly become very active in renewable and zero emission technology.

[ayou2]

Prof, the implications of a statement like Principle 15 are vast.

If it is 'suspected' your piece of land houses a rare insect, that is on an endangered list, then your land can be effectively sequestered / confiscated to preserve the species ... without proof.

[Orpheus]

Prof, the implications of a statement like Principle 15 are vast.

If it is 'suspected' your piece of land houses a rare insect, that is on an endangered list, then your land can be effectively sequestered / confiscated to preserve the species ... without proof.

And you think it is those who think we should take action to safeguard the planet are alarmist??

[proftournesol]

Prof, the implications of a statement like Principle 15 are vast.

If it is 'suspected' your piece of land houses a rare insect, that is on an endangered list, then your land can be effectively sequestered / confiscated to preserve the species ... without proof.

If you want to take it to its absolute extreme and interpret it out of context, yes. You could say that cutting your lawn causes serious damage to a blade of grass, but as you know that is not the intent of the statement but a strawman interpretation of it. What the statement actually means is that action should be taken on the balance of scientific consensus. How is this different from any medical treatment that you have? Your GP won't say to you 'ayou2 I think that you have septicaemia but let's hold off on the antibiotics until we get the autopsy report'.

[kdoot]

Prof, will reply to your economics question later on, but just saw this:
http://www.scientifi...e-nuclear-power

"The Obama Administration and the Energy Department are committed to an all-of-the-above energy strategy that develops every source of American energy, including nuclear power," said Secretary of Energy Steven Chu in a statement announcing the funding, which aims to get such modular reactors hooked into the grid by 2022. "The Energy Department and private industry are working to position America as the leader in advanced nuclear energy technology and manufacturing."

[ayou2]

And you think it is those who think we should take action to safeguard the planet are alarmist??

go back to sleep, your govt is in control

[ayou2]

OK seriously now, are they handing this out at Green Party meetings ??

[proftournesol]

OK seriously now, are they handing this out at Green Party meetings ??

No, never seen it, but if you'd like to come to a Greens meeting with me you can ask them yourself:)

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

OK seriously now, are they handing this out at Green Party meetings ??

None of the ones I've ever been to. Looks more like the propaganda that the Lieberals get involved in. I have been engaged in a running discussion with my local member (a Lieberal) and he uses the playbook that they all seem to use (except Turnbull). He even had the stupidity to mention the Oregon Petition. What a maroon.

[ayou2]

Thats the spirit ZB ... textbook chart stuff there.

"Question their sanity, integrity or humanity"

[proftournesol]

ayou2 , you've just questioned the sanity, integrity and humanity of the Greens!

[ayou2]

how ?

[proftournesol]

OK seriously now, are they handing this out at Green Party meetings ??

like this.

[ayou2]

Well where would I get the idea from ? Two avowed greens supporters, I'll not mention names, who carry on just like the chart says ?

They painted their own wagon.

Edited by ayou2, 29 March 2012 - 04:20 PM.

[proftournesol]

Renewables have the real potential to raise the standard of living of a huge portion of the developing world's poorest at minimal cost. No place for reactors here!

[proftournesol]

oops, here's the quote

Solar power has huge potential in the developing African nation of Tanzania. Not only do just 15% of the population have access to electricity, but the nation ranks as one of the top ten countries in the world for solar irradiation levels.

Camco International has announced it will help drive uptake of solar panel systems in Tanzania after winning a USD $4.7 million contract to bring solar power to rural communities living off the mains electricity grid in the Kigoma region.

In what will be Tanzania’s largest ever solar installation programme, Camco, along with joint venture partner and local solar contractor Rex Investment Ltd (RIL), will provide solar power for 45 secondary schools, 10 health centres, 120 dispensaries, municipal buildings and businesses across 25 village market centres.

The contract was awarded by U.S. foreign aid body Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which recognises the importance of renewable energy to Tanzania's fast-growing population.

As part of the tender, Camco says community households will be encouraged to participate in buyers groups to cut the cost of installing rooftop solar power systems on their homes under a programme called "PV Clusters." By purchasing solar energy systems in bulk, locals can cut the cost of installing solar on their homes.

"We are delighted that the MCC has recognized the positive impact small-scale solar installations can have on rural off-grid communities in Tanzania," said Jeff Felton, managing director of Camco, Tanzania. "While industrialized countries are trying to rethink or refit their old coal-fired plants, much of Africa could potentially leapfrog that stage and move straight to renewable energy generation."

The Kigoma project is expected to begin in May this year and is due to finish in 2013. RIL founder and managing director Francis Kibhisa said the joint venture model could pave the way for future off-grid solar energy programmes throughout Africa.

"The primary goal of the joint venture is to promote the use of solar PV by municipal organizations and commercial businesses in rural communities throughout Tanzania, many of which do not currently have access to the electricity grid."