-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
ETS
- Thread starter Rosy
- Start date
I still don't understand why solar energy is taken as a dud considering we live in a hot dry land.
TigerForce said:
I'm no expert, but I understood the cost and composition of the panels traditionally used made the net benefit at the end of the panels life questionable
New thermal technologies though (i.e. the trial plant in Mildura which is under threat right now due to the GFS) are supposed to make it much more viable :clap
Tiger74 said:
Yes, my understanding is that for solar to become a viable alternative it will require the development of new technology.
)
Giardiasis said:
Why? What about Chernobyl?
Panthera tigris FC said:
We should have enough common sense to do that. If so, hopefully it doesn't become another case of an Aussie invention getting rejected here and heading overseas.
A common thought process from ignoramuses. You really think an Australian nuclear power plant would operate under the same safety practices and procedures as a 1980's soviet reactor?TigerForce said:
Giardiasis said:
Agree that nuclear is the only long-term option. Technology has come an awful long way since Chernobyl and nuclear is by far the cleanest energy that can also deliver the volume required. I find the Greens opposition to even looking at it as a flaw in their whole position on the environment.
Total Tiger said:
Spot on.
The question that should be asked is "how many people will die from the global warming effects of coal fired power stations if we don't act soon?"
And "how many would die from an accident in a well engineered, well located and managed nuclear power station?"
Nuclear isn't the best of long term options, mainly because at current reactor numbers, we only have enough of the stuff confirmed for 80 years.
Granted new finds will open this up, but new reactors are coming online at an increasing rate
Granted new finds will open this up, but new reactors are coming online at an increasing rate
Tiger74 said:
Yep, that is what I was alluding to in my earlier post (and 80 years is not the most conservative estimate that I have read). Nuclear may work as a short term stop-gap, but it is not the long term solution.
evo said:
Something like that ;D.
Although what I didn't say in that spiel was that adding extra carbon to the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels is a far bigger contributor to the problem. The carbon cycle deals with non-sequestered carbon sources. By extracting and burning those fossil fuels we are liberating a lot of carbon that has been out of the atmosphere for a very long time.
I always wanted to hear some comments from people who live in the inner west (Newport, Yarraville, Williamstown) if the gas polluted air affects their daily lives.
For Australia
The answer is Geo-thermal
Out west - outback country a geo-thermal plant has the capacity to provide most of Australia's base load requirements.
Problem is the Government claims it would be too far from our Grid and thus would cost millions to connect (because of booster station requirements or something like that!)
I'm not that old but I do remember reading in my history lessons the doomsayers of the time saying the Snowy Mountains Electricity Scheme was too far away from Sydney to help with its base load requirements. Well they were right?
We don't need coal stations nor nuclear nor solar or wind (belch - oh excuse me! bad wind)
Geo thermal will do the trick for many many hundreds of years..........
Footnote - history has shown the ONLY WAY to get capitalists (i.e. Business Owners) to change their processes of production and distribution is by making what they currently do more costly - they soon find ways to do it better and thus cease their old methods to reduce their costs.
If left to market forces - they simply do not change
Hence the ETS is a solution to changing the way Australian Businesses do operate.
The answer is Geo-thermal
Out west - outback country a geo-thermal plant has the capacity to provide most of Australia's base load requirements.
Problem is the Government claims it would be too far from our Grid and thus would cost millions to connect (because of booster station requirements or something like that!)
I'm not that old but I do remember reading in my history lessons the doomsayers of the time saying the Snowy Mountains Electricity Scheme was too far away from Sydney to help with its base load requirements. Well they were right?
We don't need coal stations nor nuclear nor solar or wind (belch - oh excuse me! bad wind)
Geo thermal will do the trick for many many hundreds of years..........
Footnote - history has shown the ONLY WAY to get capitalists (i.e. Business Owners) to change their processes of production and distribution is by making what they currently do more costly - they soon find ways to do it better and thus cease their old methods to reduce their costs.
If left to market forces - they simply do not change
Hence the ETS is a solution to changing the way Australian Businesses do operate.
