SAY NO TO A NUCLEAR AUSTRALIA

Some answers, maybe?

I read the Greenpeace FAQ

5:37 AM, Thu 22 Feb 2007 .. Posted by snowy

I didn't bother reading any further when I saw this. "A solar panel on every roof in Australia would create enough energy to power the whole country." They are just as full of it as all the other renewable energy advocates.

Just out of interest, Snowy

6:35 AM, Thu 22 Feb 2007 .. Posted by tinacee

Is there some kind of documentation that you can refer us to that says that it's not possible? Because these articles and others like it are things that have swayed me towards preferring solar... at least in this climate. But if you can show me documented proof that solar is definitely not viable, I'd reconsider my options. After all... how do I tell which 'experts' are telling the truth and which aren't? Am I just wasting my time because everyone is full of crap? Please illuminate me, Snowy. I don't like being taken for a ride, either.

To tell you the truth, I thought that Greenpeace might be just a little too much for you to stomach, but I thought I'd go for it anyway. I was hoping that you had read the clean coal entry though, and could tell me what all that mumbo jumbo in the UIC report means. I really would like to know, because how can we make an informed decision if we don't understand? Plus, I'll admit... I'd like to know if the nuclear side is stretching the truth too. As I've said before, I don't understand much of the technicalities of power generation, so all those numbers are just that to me... numbers. I'd appreciate it if you could shed some light on that for me too... excuse the pun.

Solar costs

12:29 AM, Fri 23 Mar 2007 .. Posted by Anonymous

Solar power is "viable", but it's really expensive. Furthermore - and this is the bit that's not well understood by a lot of people - if you're going to use batteries to supply power when the sun isn't shining, or the wind isn't blowing, that costs as much or more as the solar panels.

Just to give you an idea, <A HREF="http://www.conergy.com.au/Desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-536/852_read-5437/">here's an example solar system</A> for a typical home. I choose this example because it's an "off-grid" system; there's no "cheating" by using the grid to supply power at night or when it's cloudy. Despite the fact that it costs $40,000, you still need to run a generator for several hours a day as backup.

That's why wind power has been the most widely deployed renewable energy technology - it's much, much cheaper than solar power at present costs.

And cost matters. Remember that every dollar we spend on energy is a dollar that isn't being spent on more interesting matters - for instance, tackling the other environmental issues that face us.

Getting back to the topic of your blog - nuclear - I'd like to pose a question for you. How many people has nuclear power actually killed, or even made sick, over the last few decades? And then, for comparative purposes: how many people have been killed from the pollution from coal-fired power stations?

I know that's not the only consideration on whether nuclear power is a good idea or not, but it's an important one to be properly informed about.

Anyway, hope this is helpful, and looking forward to continuing the conversation.

Robert Merkel - http://benambra.org

omg

9:42 AM, Thu 23 Aug 2007 .. Posted by Anonymous

i never knew it was so bad and that we didnt need to use nuclear power