|
|
| DIDI |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Ok, this one I have to pull you up on. Nuclear power is the best possible option. The BEST! Not only is it by far the cleanest source of energy but the safety standards have been immaculate in recent decades. The chances of a nuclear meltdown are next to none and while the waste does need to be dumped somewhere, there is more than enough room in Australia to pick a totally isolated spot where the waste won't affect the environment.
On a nuke? You're a ing idiot if you think any of that will go toward a nuke. Costs? Do you know that Australia holds the highest percentage of usable uranium in the world and how much demand there is for it? That's a multi billion dollar export industry and also means that the use of it is virtually free for Australia.
No chance of alternative energy? Rubbish. The whole plan by experts is to combine Nuclear energy with clean energy. Imagine if every house had a solar panel to heat water (and a water tank while we're at it) and the rest was supplied by a nuclear reactor? Fantastic! Clean energy, cheaper energy and more reliable energy. |
Well actually you are a little out of date , Even Howard is backing away from the nuclear option . Aside from possible side effects , it's hideously expensive to set up and that setup is very energy intensive. We couldn't expect anything before 2020 and in that time we could be up and running on mainly solar. Which has none of the adverse problems. See California , solar technology and Australian solar technology , well, it used to be our technology:(
Germany and China are also using Australian solar technology . We will probably have to buy it back at vastly inflated costs, partly because we haven't ratified Kyoto. People also tend to forget there is an enormous economic component to Kyoto.
Re the water tank thing a little report came out earlier in the year which said the cheapest way to guarantee water was to supply every house with tanks. Instead we have governments spending billions on pipelines and desalination plants, both of which are very environmentally unfriendly. |
|
|
| DIDI |
| quote: | Originally posted by echosystm
I'll admit, I'm not very educated on the intricacies of nuclear power. But, I am aware that the safety standards are not the issue.
How much does it cost to build a plant? My understanding was that it was significant enough to really pull back on alternative energy plans. Government support for solar panels etc. is already bad enough as it is. We looked into it when we were building our new house and it wasn't viable. How will that improve once the whole budget has gone towards building a nuclear plant?
I'm hanging on to hope that theres another way. |
If you are actually building a house it should cost around 20 grand to set up power to the grid. That seems to be pretty viable. Even if you have already built retrofitting shouldn't be too much of a problem. Educating builders to think outside the square could be a small problem :) Hang on in for a little longer and the subsidies will be higher, They have actually gone up a fair amount already. Solar technology is going ahead in leaps and bounds at the moment . It will be well ahead of anything that can happen with nuclear.
Btw they were talking about 28 nuclear plants and apparently we could power Australia on a solar plant 50 k square. I think we have that much land spare.:) |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by echosystm
I'll admit, I'm not very educated on the intricacies of nuclear power. But, I am aware that the safety standards are not the issue.
How much does it cost to build a plant? My understanding was that it was significant enough to really pull back on alternative energy plans. Government support for solar panels etc. is already bad enough as it is. We looked into it when we were building our new house and it wasn't viable. How will that improve once the whole budget has gone towards building a nuclear plant?
I'm hanging on to hope that theres another way. |
Nuclear power is expensive, yes. Very expensive to setup but in the long run it pays off. Not only environmentally but financially too.
I don't think anyone actually wants 100% nuclear. That's just not do able and afar better option is a combination of nuclear and alternative energy.
The government needs to step in and give big rebates for things such as solar panels and water tanks, though I haven't seen any of the governments commit to it :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by DIDI
Well actually you are a little out of date , Even Howard is backing away from the nuclear option . Aside from possible side effects , it's hideously expensive to set up and that setup is very energy intensive. We couldn't expect anything before 2020 and in that time we could be up and running on mainly solar. Which has none of the adverse problems. See California , solar technology and Australian solar technology , well, it used to be our technology:(
Germany and China are also using Australian solar technology . We will probably have to buy it back at vastly inflated costs, partly because we haven't ratified Kyoto. People also tend to forget there is an enormous economic component to Kyoto.
Re the water tank thing a little report came out earlier in the year which said the cheapest way to guarantee water was to supply every house with tanks. Instead we have governments spending billions on pipelines and desalination plants, both of which are very environmentally unfriendly. |
Well it's an issue that's been overshadowed a bit by the election and other things. I think it will come back very quickly once all the rest of this stuff settles down. I don't believe I'm out of date and all and the support for nuclear energy is actually growing amongst the general population once people get educated and actually learn a bit more about it. Expensive yes (as previously mentioned) but definitely worth it in the long run.
Solar technology is a bit fragile but I must admit it does have potential. Nuclear + Solar = Win Win imho but there's a possibility that we may not even need Nuclear at all. The Germans are researching a kilometre high solar power plant. That's right you read right, a kilometre high! :eek: Heated air or maybe steam (due to solar panels around the plant) are channeled into the 1km tower and as it rises it drives turbines. This seems a way off though and building a kilometre high building poses problems in itself. Structural viability, safety concerns over terrorism, need for proper materials, etc.
The watertanks are a no brainer. The government already gives a rebate on them but it's too little. They should give a much bigger rebate and make it compulsory for all new homes to have one, while giving existing homes a deadline of like 2012 to install one. |
|
|
| echosystm |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
The government already gives a rebate on them but it's too little. They should give a much bigger rebate and make it compulsory for all new homes to have one, while giving existing homes a deadline of like 2012 to install one. |
In SA we already have to have a small tank for toilets + garden stuff. It's probably just a state level thing though... we're f*cked for water lol. |
|
|
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
tranceaddict Forums Archive > Local Scene Info / Discussion > Australia
|
