Nothing new to me, but then again I am geologist. It's something I've studied. Coal contains quite a bit of disseminated radioactive minerals as do the rocks it comes from. Most sediments carry uranium and thorium (especially thorium). Another thing...all those "black" sands we have in Oz...full of rutile. Also full of thorium.
While I understand the importance of using nuclear reactors to generate isotopes for medical and industrial purposes I do not support the wide use of nuclear fuels to provide energy to the masses. The technology to go renewable is already available at a cost. 2 or three years ago I watched a catalyst program which showcased research carried out by either ANU or Monash (cannot remember which?) in developing cost efficient photovoltaic cells. These clever chaps had managed to develop a process in which the cells could be produced at about 10 - 20% the cost of current versions. How? They made a cutting device that could slice waffers at 1/10th the thickness of anyone else. We all know it is not the thickness of the panel but the surface area that counts so they could produce ten waffers form the same amount of material used to make one. If these solar panels were used in conjunction with hydrogen fuel cells it would be possible to deliver all our energy needs based on currently available technology. We have large areas of uninhabited arid land with excellent exposure to the year round sun and the nett pollution is zero if the hydrogen, oxygen and water are kept in a closed system. Sure my power bill would go up but it would be better then paying a stupid carbon tax designed to fleece the masses or paying for a technology to replace coal which would only last 30 odd years and leave us and our descendants with a great big mess to clean up. Obviously we would need to use other renewable sources like wind, geothermal, hydro and wave technology but it is time we stopped looking for temporary solutions and just go the whole hog. We know where we need to be so lets get on with it.
Mark
I saw that episode as well and was suitably impressed, although I don't completely agree with Nuclear, the Solar concept mention in the program was still quite some time away from full development. It would not provide as much power as the PV panels currently available.
If need action we need to find the fastest actionable solution. Gas only has a 30% reduction, so nuclear seems to be the best and should only best used to replace the existing coal stations first. In the meantime i could see better use for government funds to help the solar research and maybe by the time 3 or 4 power station are complete we may see th end of Nuclear, or maybe Fusion reactors would be developed as mentioned in the program "How to make a Sun on Earth".
For those that really need action on climate change Nuclear is the fastest and so far the best.
I agree with Bert on solar but we might need something else at night or when there is a long spell of cloudy days.
Geothermal or wind or wave could be used at night. Solar thermal could probably last a night in summer using molten salt.
Here is a suggested action plan for Australia. http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/01/2...bon-australia/
I saw that episode as well and was suitably impressed, although I don't completely agree with Nuclear, the Solar concept mention in the program was still quite some time away from full development. It would not provide as much power as the PV panels currently available.
If need action we need to find the fastest actionable solution. Gas only has a 30% reduction, so nuclear seems to be the best and should only best used to replace the existing coal stations first. In the meantime i could see better use for government funds to help the solar research and maybe by the time 3 or 4 power station are complete we may see th end of Nuclear, or maybe Fusion reactors would be developed as mentioned in the program "How to make a Sun on Earth".
For those that really need action on climate change Nuclear is the fastest and so far the best.
Malcom I am against anything to do with destroying resources that cannot be retrieved. The burning of coal, LPG and crude for energy is criminal in my view. From the perspective of chemistry there are so many essential compounds that we simply cannot make in a lab that will be lost when these fuels are exhausted. The only other viable source is trees, what next a new global easter island? We only have small reserves of uranium and I will bet as soon as we use that up another essential requirement will be found which we will not be able to do due to lack of resources. The sun has powered this planet for millions of years, when will we the "wise ones" work that out. The technology is here now though expensive as it may be. What will be the cost of going on our merry way? I do not believe fusion will ever be a viable source of energy on Earth but why bother? we have a great big burning star thats doing all the work for us. Note that the OPEC nations who consider themselves as the worlds energy suppliers are planning on continuing to do so when the oil runs out. What are they investing in, nuclear technologies? No solar is where their money is going.
Our DNA repair systems are quite capable of coping with a small load of natural environmental radiation. In fact we evolved with this as a part of our natural environment.
Bert
Not everyone has this built in protection. This chromosome pair is absent in some people, a condition called "Lynch Syndrome". What causes these silent mutations to occur?????
Not everyone has this built in protection. This chromosome pair is absent in some people, a condition called "Lynch Syndrome". What causes these silent mutations to occur?????
JJJ there are a large number of mechanisms for mutation in DNA ( just living will do it) and they occur on a daily basis mainly in the non-coding areas of the strands. It only really becomes a problem when active regions are mutated causing all sorts of malfunctions to occur depending on what exactly gets changed. Our DNA contains repair mechanisms called SOS genes that work to repair any mutation which occurs. It is also possible to have only one of the repair sites active with the other being mutated and people with this mutation are more prone to cancer. Mutated DNA is passed on from generation to generation and if you are unlucky enough to have hetrozygous parents and inherit two faulty pairs you are in real trouble.
Malcom I am against anything to do with destroying resources that cannot be retrieved. The burning of coal, LPG and crude for energy is criminal in my view. From the perspective of chemistry there are so many essential compounds that we simply cannot make in a lab that will be lost when these fuels are exhausted. The only other viable source is trees, what next a new global easter island? We only have small reserves of uranium and I will bet as soon as we use that up another essential requirement will be found which we will not be able to do due to lack of resources. The sun has powered this planet for millions of years, when will we the "wise ones" work that out. The technology is here now though expensive as it may be. What will be the cost of going on our merry way? I do not believe fusion will ever be a viable source of energy on Earth but why bother? we have a great big burning star thats doing all the work for us.
Mark
I agree there, Mark. There are far more important uses for the crude oil and LPG than burning the stuff. However, solar power, as it is at present, is not our definitive answer. I've said it previously, it is not an efficient enough technology to be considered to be used as a base load energy supply source. It's greatest asset, sunlight, is also its greatest liability. Plus, we don't have sufficiently advance energy storage technologies yet, to be able to store what energy we do capture. Even the best of the sun based technologies is only 25% (at the very most 30%) efficient in capturing and even less for storing the energy gathered. You only have to look at the power requirements for a city the size of Sydney or Melbourne to see how impractical, at present, this type of energy generation is. Especially where using the present methodologies for generating and distributing power are concerned.
What we ultimately need is a solar PV cell which can harness 75-90% of the light impinging upon the cells and a far more efficient (and safe) storage technology than what we have at present. A typical house would use around 20Kw of energy to run all the electrical systems within it. Each square metre of the Earth's surface has 1370W per square metre of solar insolation. That means 14.6 square metres of surface area intercepts 20Kw of energy. At 75% efficiency, it means you'll need about 20 square metres to intercept that amount of energy. The roof of your average home could easily accommodate a PV panel of that size. Now, if we can achieve this sort of efficiency and also develop the batteries to store it, then we will be getting somewhere. The really big thing about this is that we don't have to rely on centralised energy generating utilities if we can do this. No need for greedy energy corporations, except for the industrial sector, possibly.
Using our present technologies (including those solar furnace power stations), you would need impractically large areas set aside for energy generation of a magnitude large enough to act as a main supply.
And...what are the environmentalists going to say about it all, when you're mining all that silica sand and such to make all the mirrors, etc, for these plants?? If they find anything they disagree about, they whine. Next minute, they'll be complaining the solar plant takes up too much space, or you've had to mine 100KT of pure sand (or whatever else you might use) to make the mirrors. You're disturbing the habitat of the Itchy-goo bird!!!. Or the endangered pink spotted sabretooth hopping mouse!!!!.
You can see now, this is more complicated than it looks. Some things might look good on paper and in small to medium scale trials, but it's the really big picture that we have to consider. That's where things don't look so rosy and where we have to spend our research money to get things going.
I agree there, Mark. There are far more important uses for the crude oil and LPG than burning the stuff. However, solar power, as it is at present, is not our definitive answer. I've said it previously, it is not an efficient enough technology to be considered to be used as a base load energy supply source. It's greatest asset, sunlight, is also its greatest liability. Plus, we don't have sufficiently advance energy storage technologies yet, to be able to store what energy we do capture. Even the best of the sun based technologies is only 25% (at the very most 30%) efficient in capturing and even less for storing the energy gathered. You only have to look at the power requirements for a city the size of Sydney or Melbourne to see how impractical, at present, this type of energy generation is. Especially where using the present methodologies for generating and distributing power are concerned.
What we ultimately need is a solar PV cell which can harness 75-90% of the light impinging upon the cells and a far more efficient (and safe) storage technology than what we have at present. A typical house would use around 20Kw of energy to run all the electrical systems within it. Each square metre of the Earth's surface has 1370W per square metre of solar insolation. That means 14.6 square metres of surface area intercepts 20Kw of energy. At 75% efficiency, it means you'll need about 20 square metres to intercept that amount of energy. The roof of your average home could easily accommodate a PV panel of that size. Now, if we can achieve this sort of efficiency and also develop the batteries to store it, then we will be getting somewhere. The really big thing about this is that we don't have to rely on centralised energy generating utilities if we can do this. No need for greedy energy corporations, except for the industrial sector, possibly.
Using our present technologies (including those solar furnace power stations), you would need impractically large areas set aside for energy generation of a magnitude large enough to act as a main supply.
And...what are the environmentalists going to say about it all, when you're mining all that silica sand and such to make all the mirrors, etc, for these plants?? If they find anything they disagree about, they whine. Next minute, they'll be complaining the solar plant takes up too much space, or you've had to mine 100KT of pure sand (or whatever else you might use) to make the mirrors. You're disturbing the habitat of the Itchy-goo bird!!!. Or the endangered pink spotted sabretooth hopping mouse!!!!.
You can see now, this is more complicated than it looks. Some things might look good on paper and in small to medium scale trials, but it's the really big picture that we have to consider. That's where things don't look so rosy and where we have to spend our research money to get things going.
Carl using current technologies it has been calculated that 50 square km of panels with fuel cells utilising either water or methane would produce enough energy to supply the needs of australia for some time into the future. If we start now future improvements in technology can be implimented as they become available. Sounds like a lot of money yes? Consider that the WA gov is thinking of spending billions on developing our river front to the city or the billion the pollies are going to throw at sport. At least we will have a nice view and be fit as we choke to death on our own pollution. We need to make a start now, hanging around waiting for someone to develop the silver bullet will only lead to more apathy and nothing will get done. Copenhagen has been a fine example of that. We need to make a firm committment for change and set a path for the engineers to move in. Sure lots of problems to solve but not impossible by any means.
Carl using current technologies it has been calculated that 50 square km of panels with fuel cells utilising either water or methane would produce enough energy to supply the needs of australia for some time into the future. If we start now future improvements in technology can be implimented as they become available. Sounds like a lot of money yes? Consider that the WA gov is thinking of spending billions on developing our river front to the city or the billion the pollies are going to throw at sport. At least we will have a nice view and be fit as we choke to death on our own pollution. We need to make a start now, hanging around will only lead to more apathy and nothing will get done.
Mark
See what I mean...50 square km of panels and unless it's a closed cycle system, a producer of a lot of GHG. At what percentage of energy capture are they calculating these energy generating capacities?? And how do they propose to store all this energy??. The Greenies will find any excuse to protest against it. Plus, how long do you think it would take to make enough panels to cover the area, then set up all the ancillary infrastructure for this type of powerplant, of that size?? What will the cost be??
Well, it's easy enough to fix the pollies and change their policies. All it takes is a bit of backbone and some organisation. They're supposed to be our representatives, so at our behest. Not the other way around (like it invariably seems to be).
See what I mean...50 square km of panels and unless it's a closed cycle system, a producer of a lot of GHG. At what percentage of energy capture are they calculating these energy generating capacities?? And how do they propose to store all this energy??. The Greenies will find any excuse to protest against it. Plus, how long do you think it would take to make enough panels to cover the area, then set up all the ancillary infrastructure for this type of powerplant, of that size?? What will the cost be??
Well, it's easy enough to fix the pollies and change their policies. All it takes is a bit of backbone and some organisation. They're supposed to be our representatives, so at our behest. Not the other way around (like it invariably seems to be).
Carl I have a mate who lives up at York. He has setup his house so it runs on solar cells and batteries. The design of the house is such that energy requirements are minimal and he and his family are very comfortable. He has a small generator which he fires up when needed to recharge the batteries but this is a very rare occassion. The fuel cells used would have to be closed system or it would defeat the purpose of it all. Stored gas does not have to be under high pressure for the fuel cell to work. How do you compare the cost of building something big to the cost of the future of our species and planet? I never said it would be cheap but it is possible. The Govt has already made a start by funding people to put solar cells on our roofs (I know I have them). Now we need to go that next step.
Granted we don't have a river like the Yangtze, but when you combine solar with hydro electric (this new plant opened in Victoria this year), with wind and other renewable energy sources, we certainly have the capability to phase away from coal while not turning to nuclear either.
Carl I have a mate who lives up at York. He has setup his house so it runs on solar cells and batteries. The design of the house is such that energy requirements are minimal and he and his family are very comfortable. He has a small generator which he fires up when needed to recharge the batteries but this is a very rare occassion. The fuel cells used would have to be closed system or it would defeat the purpose of it all. Stored gas does not have to be under high pressure for the fuel cell to work. How do you compare the cost of building something big to the cost of the future of our species and planet? I never said it would be cheap but it is possible. The Govt has already made a start by funding people to put solar cells on our roofs (I know I have them). Now we need to go that next step.
Mark
Very commendable efforts. But like I said before, most people will want to keep their present lifestyles in so far as energy usage goes. That's just a give fact. If we can implement some of these technologies, then great. Do it. But if we want to see costs come down and efficiency to rise, we're going to have to look at other ways of doing things. No matter how laudable or necessary a thing might be, if it's going to cost too much in the long run, most people won't have a bar of it, eventually. I'm afraid it'll take a lot longer to change human nature than it will to build these powerplants. They will only ever be a stopgap measure (even if that means 50 years of use, or more).
That's why we need the money to do the research necessary to come up with these technologies. In the meantime, we have to make do with what we can do. But we're going to have to pull our heads in when we do.
Carl - if things like the ETS force energy costs up then many people will certainly consider changing their lifestyle. In NSW energy costs are already soaring. You saw it when petrol prices rose - large car sales hurt, small car sales boomed.
Very commendable efforts. But like I said before, most people will want to keep their present lifestyles in so far as energy usage goes. That's just a give fact. If we can implement some of these technologies, then great. Do it. But if we want to see costs come down and efficiency to rise, we're going to have to look at other ways of doing things. No matter how laudable or necessary a thing might be, if it's going to cost too much in the long run, most people won't have a bar of it, eventually. I'm afraid it'll take a lot longer to change human nature than it will to build these powerplants. They will only ever be a stopgap measure (even if that means 50 years of use, or more).
That's why we need the money to do the research necessary to come up with these technologies. In the meantime, we have to make do with what we can do. But we're going to have to pull our heads in when we do.
I wonder how the mob would react to a choice between a carbon tax designed to fleece the masses without impacting the large CO2 producers and getting wasted on flying Krudd and friends to world climate conventions or a levy to start changing over to renewable power sources? Sadly that is not an option we are being given.
Granted we don't have a river like the Yangtze, but when you combine solar with hydro electric (this new plant opened in Victoria this year), with wind and other renewable energy sources, we certainly have the capability to phase away from coal while not turning to nuclear either.
They also don't have the rabid greenies we do. Another dam, or series of dams would go down like a lead balloon.
In any case, the Three Gorges Dam is unsafe, both from an environmental and engineering PoV. It sits on about half a dozen major faults in the middle of an earthquake prone zone. It's an earth fill dam by construction. The weight of the water in the dam is sufficient enough alone to generate an earthquake. The Chinese government were warned not to build it by their own geologists and engineers, but they were ignored. This dam was built purely on political grounds...that it helps to mitigate flooding is just a secondary concern, an added benefit. If this dam cracks for any reason and the wall collapses, it'll kill 100 million people or more.
Very commendable efforts. But like I said before, most people will want to keep their present lifestyles in so far as energy usage goes. That's just a give fact. If we can implement some of these technologies, then great. Do it. But if we want to see costs come down and efficiency to rise, we're going to have to look at other ways of doing things. No matter how laudable or necessary a thing might be, if it's going to cost too much in the long run, most people won't have a bar of it, eventually. I'm afraid it'll take a lot longer to change human nature than it will to build these powerplants. They will only ever be a stopgap measure (even if that means 50 years of use, or more).
That's why we need the money to do the research necessary to come up with these technologies. In the meantime, we have to make do with what we can do. But we're going to have to pull our heads in when we do.
Its not just what we do in our homes we have large buildings leaving every light in the place on all night every night 24/7 365 days a year every year. Our local council has just started installing these new street lights in areas where the roads are being upgraded imagine if every street light were converted to these. I am sure that there are more things that can be done we just have to think outside the box
Carl - if things like the ETS force energy costs up then many people will certainly consider changing their lifestyle. In NSW energy costs are already soaring. You saw it when petrol prices rose - large car sales hurt, small car sales boomed.
Building one of these powerplants to the size mentioned will force up energy costs...dramatically. People will only change so much before they start to complain, in some cases rather bitterly. Push people too far and see what happens.
I wonder how the mob would react to a choice between a carbon tax designed to fleece the masses without impacting the large CO2 producers and getting wasted on flying Krudd and friends to world climate conventions or a levy to start changing over to renewable power sources? Sadly that is not an option we are being given.
Mark
I never said I agree with a carbon tax, like the one proposed. But the thing is, as it stands, the mob is caught between a rock and a hard place. Either pay this tax to salve the minds and pockets of the big corporations, or, pay to have the technology installed to generate clean(ish) power and pay through the nose for it. In any case, you know who will benefit from this the most...the big corporations. Big energy especially. Their government flunkies will also benefit from the crumbs they happen to give them as well. It's like I said, people will only put up with this sort of affair for so long, unless they're apathetic and stupid.
What would you do, or more to the point, what do you think most people would do if their power bill went up by 50%, or 100, 200, 300%, in order to pay for all of this?? Regardless of its environmental credentials or how kind it was to nature, they'd riot. Because it wouldn't only be the power bill that went up. There are only two ways to really lower the costs of energy generation in this scenario...1) Subsidisation of the power supply (which isn't going to happen) and/or 2) Economies of scale...and the only way to achieve that is by individual, self contained power generation, not by massive national utilities. The only reason power is (relatively) cheap at present is the economies of scale w.r.t. coal mining and transportation. It's the reason why coals mines are so huge, why the trains are miles long and the price is relatively cheap. If it wasn't like this, then you'd be paying through the nose for power right now.
The reason why Copenhagen, like all the other conferences, was a dud is because of this. Money = power and neither the big corporations or the governments are willing to change their ways because of what it will mean to them. It's the reason why all their talk about clean energy and such gets nowhere in the long run. In a cruel twist (for them), they are at the behest of the people. Not because of the people's insistence that they change, but because of what will happen if they change or have to change quickly. People don't like change, people like to be comfortable and let someone else have to do all the dirty work. If we're going to get out of all of this, then it will have to be a change in the very fabric of the society that is going to have to happen, not a cosmetic change of changing your methods of power generation. If society doesn't change its fundamentals, then we will repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
You can only do that so many times before the system ultimately fails.
Its not just what we do in our homes we have large buildings leaving every light in the place on all night every night 24/7 365 days a year every year. Our local council has just started installing these new street lights in areas where the roads are being upgraded imagine if every street light were converted to these. I am sure that there are more things that can be done we just have to think outside the box
That's a good start. But more needs to be done...are we willing to do more?
This chromosome pair is absent in some people, a condition called "Lynch Syndrome". What causes these silent mutations to occur?????
