Nuclear Power? (2 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

Where is Geothermal a viable option in Australia? Like to eliminate the need for Coal?

From my recollection extensive investigation into geothermal energy was conducted for commercial use in Australia however due to the makeup of the Earth's crust under Australia. Specifically that in New Zealand the subterranean cracks in the crust are horizontal but in Australia they are vertical. This means that the water going down the injection well can not then come up a production well.

The other issue is that geothermal has massive capital costs, mostly concentrated on the cost of drilling the wells. The longer the well the more expensive and hence less viable the plant. The crust is thinner near the edges of tectonic plates and therefore the wells can be shorter and the plants can be viable.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

I'm the resident greenie and I think it's a shame the environmental movement has associated the inefficient, unstable, dangerous nuclear reactors of the Cold War with the small, harmless, efficient reactors of today.

So in case you're blind, that's a resounding yes for nuclear power. It won't solve our fossil fuel problems but it'll help, and critically, it's an excellent intermediate technology between oil and renewables.

 

[loller]

Yeah so its not viable for Australia like nuclear is

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

From my recollection extensive investigation into geothermal energy was conducted for commercial use in Australia however due to the makeup of the Earth's crust under Australia. Specifically that in New Zealand the subterranean cracks in the crust are horizontal but in Australia they are vertical. This means that the water going down the injection well can not then come up a production well.

The other issue is that geothermal has massive capital costs, mostly concentrated on the cost of drilling the wells. The longer the well the more expensive and hence less viable the plant. The crust is thinner near the edges of tectonic plates and therefore the wells can be shorter and the plants can be viable.

That might have been true at one plant but it's certainly not the case in general. Australia has some of the most active geothermal and hot dry rock research in the world.

What some people fail to understand is that no single energy source will or should replace coal. An ideal situation would be something like 25% wind, 25% geothermal, 25% nuclear, 25% solar.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

The key issue which alternative energy is that it typically isn't a viable business model. Large scale solar/wind/tidal/etc plants have a very high per/kw cost.

*sigh* I don't know where you're getting this from, but it's patently not true. They're are so many different renewable technologies being researched and a good chunk of them aren't viable for those reasons. But there's also a good chunk that are, and many of them have already been deployed successful in commercial settings.

Here's an example, so that I don't come across as simply contrarian: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/837025/african-solar-energy-to-power-europe/?rss=yes

In general, coal will always be the cheapest fuel source. It's also the dirtiest, and not just in terms of CO2. If we accept that it's worth investing in slightly more expensive, but far cleaner, technologies such as algae, nuclear, wind, etc, then an entire world of opportunities presents itself. And people do accept that - both citizens and businesses. The businesses especially when there's a market for it amongst said citizens, or when they're being regulated such that coal cost rises (e.g. cap and trade or carbon tax).

 

[loller]

Well dont just tell us about them, show us

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Well dont just tell us about them, show us

I knew somebody would respond like that, so I added a link in an edit.

And another reason why it is important that we don't replace our coal addiction with another addiction (whether geothermal or nuclear) is that we don't yet really know what the best alternative energy source is. Far better to diversify amongst 4 or 5 and let them compete for the mantle of best fuel (both in terms of money and CO).

 

[Riet]

Most definitely a yes, the fact we don't have it is disgraceful.

 

[loquasagacious]

*sigh* I don't know where you're getting this from, but it's patently not true. They're are so many different renewable technologies being researched and a good chunk of them aren't viable for those reasons. But there's also a good chunk that are, and many of them have already been deployed successful in commercial settings.

Here's an example, so that I don't come across as simply contrarian: African solar energy to power Europe

In general, coal will always be the cheapest fuel source. It's also the dirtiest, and not just in terms of CO2. If we accept that it's worth investing in slightly more expensive, but far cleaner, technologies such as algae, nuclear, wind, etc, then an entire world of opportunities presents itself. And people do accept that - both citizens and businesses. The businesses especially when there's a market for it amongst said citizens, or when they're being regulated such that coal cost rises (e.g. cap and trade or carbon tax).

I am happy to accept that some renewable energy technologies are approaching cost parity Solar electricity to reach cost parity with coal-based power by 2010 - 4/9/2007 - Electronic Business, albeit in countries which probably have far higher coal costs than we do.

The big issue though is that as a society we have to accept paying more for our energy. Doubling the energy bill for a household is not an enormous imposition however doubling the energy bill for business will have massive flow-on effects in the economy.

 

[Iron]

Why is Labor against this again? Hawke's victory and the green momentum around the Franklin dam? Perhaps they anticipate Brown's retirement and the subsequent bleeding white of the Greens back into the Labor fold...
Clearly Howard always tried to wedge them with this, but it's insane that theyre so booga-booga about climate change, yet unwilling to do this. If Garrett can up the 3 mine policy, then anything is possible

 

[Enteebee]

I'm not sure if nuclear power is the best way to go, however I do find it somewhat odd to go around saying nuclear power is too dangerous for your electorates etc while they send the stuff off to other countries.

 

[Graney]

Cost is the biggest barrier to new nuclear plants. Not one new plant was built in the US for a period of ~30/40 years for this reason.

There's about 20'000 petajoules stored in serious potential locations for geothermal power plants in Australia.

The biggest potential geothermal site in Australia, located in the Cooper Pedy basin, holds about 8000 petajoules potential.

They are planning to invest in sequestering carbon emissions in this same location wtf you cunts.

There is almost no investment in geothermal. It's not expensive and the technology exists now, unlike bullshit dead ends which so much money is wasted on, wind, solar, carbon sequestration. No one talks about geothermal.

 

[lyounamu]

I personally reckon that we should consider this option despite some drawbacks of this...such as nuclear waste and etc. Its overwhelming advantages would probably outweigh the disadvantages it has.

 

[Lentern]

If you'd asked me this five years ago I would have said no without blinking. I'm coming around but I'm not there yet. There are still improvements that can be made particularly regarding waste. I do believe it is the future but solar, geothermal, wind and dare I say coal can buy us a few more years of improvement and I'd inclined to wait for that.

I think Robert Mugabe arranged this poll.

 

[JonathanM]

Clearly Howard always tried to wedge them with this, but it's insane that theyre so booga-booga about climate change, yet unwilling to do this. If Garrett can up the 3 mine policy, then anything is possible

Rudd lacks the balls. Simple as that.

Hopefully Joe Hockey will take over the Liberal leadership so we can all vote for him. He'd have the cojones to stick it up the Greens.

 

[Iron]

Rudd lacks the balls. Simple as that.

Hopefully Joe Hockey will take over the Liberal leadership so we can all vote for him. He'd have the cojones to stick it up the Greens.

I think so too. I find myself liking the Liberal fringe-bedfellows more and more. Barnaby never misses Sunday mass at the Cathedral, you know...
But the Greens are evil and counter-productive imo

 

[Lentern]

I think so too. I find myself liking the Liberal fringe-bedfellows more and more. Barnaby never misses Sunday mass at the Cathedral, you know...
But the Greens are evil and counter-productive imo

I used to think Barnaby was cool but as time has gone by he's come across as more and more of a show poney. His whole "I'm above the party machine" act loses it's luster when he mounts a leadership challenge in the senate. He's changed man, he used to be about the farmers.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

But the Greens are evil and counter-productive imo

What, because we support civil rights over social conservatism?

 

[Iron]

Ive been nothing but impressed with how he's been able to grasp issues and processes in Canberra. When elected, I thought that he was a joke and mockery of the Parliament, but he has confidently taken on the role and has a very real ability to articulate issues in ways that resonate with many people, imo. Clearly the future of the Nats

 

[Lentern]

Ive been nothing but impressed with how he's been able to grasp issues and processes in Canberra. When elected, I thought that he was a joke and mockery of the Parliament, but he has confidently taken on the role and has a very real ability to articulate issues in ways that resonate with many people, imo. Clearly the future of the Nats

Nats don't have a future don't be daft. They have been gradually withering up and dying ever since Florence left the senate.