Clean and Green

[Baron von Richthofen]

:cool3::cool3::cool3:Australia should build the first fusion reactor power plant, instead of all these bandied solutions they are proposing
Clean and Green

[renormalised]

Problem is, there's no working solutions to (hot) fusion power, yet. Not only that, but fusion power produces fast neutrons, which irradiate the casing of the reactor and make it mildly radioactive. So, you can't get away from the fact it's not completely "clean and green". But it's more so than present reactor technology.

[Baron von Richthofen]

Some one has to be first, why not us

[renormalised]

We don't have the facilities at present to conduct much of this research and the government won't fund it, anyway, as it cost billions to run an experimental fusion reactor program.

[AstralTraveller]

Yes, fusion is the holy grail of energy production. Unfortunately it is equally elusive. I remember when I was at school believing that fission power would just be a transitional power source until fusion was mastered. Thirty five years later not much has changed in that regard, except that there is now more emphasis on renewable power. I'm not against fusion research but I can't help wondering where we would be if the money poured into fusion research had been spent on renewables. Even better, what if the money spent on military research had been spent on renewables. I suppose I'm preaching to the choir on that one.

[Baron von Richthofen]

I have worked out an high efficacy home power system that does not use batteries for storage and very very low maintenance but more complex but I was disabled before I built it
It uses a vertical mounted fly wheel 5 to 10 tons, not very big
No one has dun it this way yet
If any ones interested

[Ian Robinson]

Because it would bankrupt the entire country and the commercialised proven technology to do it efficiently and safely and to get more energy out that put in is maybe 100 years away.

We are better off going down the Thorium Fission route rather than the Uranium / Plutonium Fission route , in the mean time , we've stacks of NG and coal, so why not use it (Ultra Clean Coal is the best solution , if the carbon dioxide can be utilised or captured and stored PERMANENTLY).

[renormalised]

I'd rather see us utilise Thorium fission and NG. I'd also like to see them work openly on "Cold" Fusion, regardless of its past.

[Glenhuon]

Clean coal is a mythical beast, only way it can stay clean is if you don't dig it up.

Bill

[Fossil]

I received this in an unsigned email, so I don't know how accurate the information is...



Here’s a way to understand Mr Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon pollution. We’ll have a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide.

A bit over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. About half an inch. Just over a centimetre.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre.



As a hair is to a kilometre – so is Australia’s contribution to what Mr Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge, ready to be officially opened by Mr Rudd. It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted – there’s a human hair on the roadway. We’d laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It’s hard to imagine that Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can’t believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Perhaps we all need to just take a few deep breaths.

[AstralTraveller]

This kilometre of air analogy is very misleading.

The 'thickness' is not what matters. The effect is important. It's a bit like putting a piece of paper in front of your scope. Someone might comment that, as the light has travelled billions of km uninterrupted, what is the problem with a little obstruction less than 1mm thick? Well, I think you could tell at the eyepiece what the problem is. Similarly, most of the atmosphere is transparent to IR radiation but that little 38mm of CO2 does make a difference. And the change from pre-industrial 280ppm (28mm) to 380ppm also makes a difference.