Renewable fuels

a big problem with renewal energy is cost v output.
the dont work unless sun is out or wind is blowing...end even then they have to shut down cos its too hot or the wind is too strong

bring on the uranium debate...the sooner we get going, the better

Just because it's on the 7.30 report doesn't make it factual.
I suggest you read what is actually being said about wind farms.
It appears to me that the so called neo liberals are actually in favour of windfarms but not if the local population do not want them in a particular location (ie visual pollution, bird deaths, etc).

Disco

I like the idea of wind but for power supply i am not sure it is consistent enough. The reason fossil fuel is consistent is because basicly we have a back log. When trying to switch from it we need to use current sun power - all movement on the earth is from the sun except those little creatures relying on heat at the the thermal vents on the bottom of the ocean. My bet (and I dont know why there is not much discussion on it) is on tidal power. It is very consistent, light, dark, stormy, hot, cold, still, windy etc... Also the volume of mass moving along our coast twice daily uses masses and masses of energy. From a mechanical perspective it would not be difficult to harness this simple movement. If you look at coal and nuke power, its just a big simple fan idea, surely tidal could be just as easy, in my view its just stting there waiting for us to use.

I think we are going to need biodiesel. ethhanol, windfarms, tide power where the coast is right and most promising of all, hot rocks. It is estimated that it will take 10 years to set new infrastructures up. They may be a bit pricier now (biodiesel and ethanol are already cheaper), but with petrol/diesel estimated to keep rising 30% a year for the forseeable future, investing in these alternatives now will look smart with hindsight in 10 years. Visual pollution of turbines? Still looks a lot better than the results of carbon pollution. Bird deaths? This has to be a joke. Have you watched the speed those blades turn? This story is put around by the same mob who reckon the blades will slow the spinning of the earth.
Nuclear? Ever really sat down and read up on what happened at Chernobyl and what that area is like today? Even so, I could be talked into taking a chance on another Chernobyl(or worse). But The waste products stay toxic for 25000 years++++. There is no way we can safely store that stuff so that some future event/ human exploration/accident won't spill the stuff. How could you confidently store something for 1000 years let alone 25000 years. If we go nuclear, the amount of waste will expand massively. Until we have a foolproof process to deal with waste we are suicidal to go this path. Its a bit like jumping out a window and feeling confident that science will come up with an anti gravity ray before we hit.

Just spotted this in today's Australian. Essential reading on this topic.
Site Link

Cost v Output? Visual Pollution? Bird deaths? All the reasons (from what I can tell) that have been sighted as reasons to avoid a lot of the alternative fuels are things that WE ALL are going to face anyway if we continue on the path we are going. The cost of oil, coal etc will be much much higher as supplies run out and demand does not cease. Visual pollution - I would far prefer to see wind farms than nothing at all. baren dead land that is already struggling to support our population (and they reckon we're meant to 'make one for the country') and bird death. Far more than just blo*dy birds will die if we don't change our ways soon. One method is sustainable, the other isn't. Both produce similar result from both sides of the argument. How many brain cells are really needed to figure this one out????

the urainum is enriched to produce u235 it is the most stable. unlike plutonium it can be recycled.

these reactors are know as pwr's (pressurised water reactors) they are'nt knew all the nuclear subs in the western world operate them.

The reactors give more power from a smaller source being u235.

the primary loop is pressuried water, enriched with hydrogen then pass into steam genny's.

you cannot get an explosion like a plutonium reactor.

also on a loss of primary loop flow will cause a reactor scram and emergency cooling takes place that doesnt rely on and pumps or human intervention.

like i said they have been using this system for over 30 years.

but if you had the the pipes rupture inside the confines of the main loop isolation valves u could get an reactor melt down, causing i guess another useless tunnel to put a toll on.

gra

In Australia, individual households can choose to have all our electricity from a 'green' source. It costs a lot more though.

We can also give up our 4wds and drive much smaller cars which on average consume less fuel per 100kms driven. Or own two cars - the 4wd and a Prius. But I can't afford it. We have a lot of options - and to say "alternative energry sources are being discouraged" is not totally accurate. It's just that the market price of alternate sources doesn't justify it yet.

Now I suppose we can argue all day about the 'real' cost of fossil fuels...maybe the price we are paying now per litre (or for the coal we burn) isn't covering the cost of fixing the environmental damage later on...it's going to be debated for a while I suppose.

Pete

When renewables become more prolific, and they will whether this government expands them or the next, the cost of electricity from these sources will ultimately be cheaper than fossil fuels (and nuclear). All of the arguments for continuing fossil fuels or changing to nuclear will seem dumb. We may as well get used to seeing wind farms around the place on our travels.

The people who are fortunate enough to be in a position to invest in new renewables companies should profit handsomely. Australia will be a better and cleaner place for it.

As soon as a solar powered fourby comes onto the market i will buy one but in the meantime i am supporting the biodiesel industry and researchers as much as i can.

Good discussion.

Barnesy

If David & Michelle were to put a wind Farm on this forum, they would be able to retire in a few months.

The multi-nationals rule the world.
Get used to it.

Lets face it guys, this post has just been one where Barnsey just wants to outlast eveyone else. We are all going to die, some by tobacco, some by falling of a horse, some by eating too much and others for being in the sun too much, others like Gramps of old age perhaps.

All the energy sources we use, even solar have a large component of non-renewable to get them manufactured and going, let alone the research.

It is interesting that you like to promote wind farms that generate usable power for about 11% of the time they are erected. How that will light your homes I don't know. They need to be able to hold it for the time they don't generate. That means batteries and more resources to make the wind turbines function.

So Bracksie wants you to pay more just so he gets his project up. I have had wind farm proponents on our farm to talk to us about installing them, but basicly thay want more government subsidies to be able to erect them, more than 2-3 times current.

You guy are complaining about paying fuel taxes but it will be even greater if business has to fund a wind powered world. Get real. The hot rocks project mentioned above here is a potential future power source at a similar price to the coal powered electricity.

Barnsey is telling us that nuclear isn't an option but it is for 60 million of France's population currently and it is sold to neighbouring countries. Having been in France travelling for weeks at a time, I could not tell you where their power stations are. They arn't anywhere as visible as our are in Australia. Have seen plenty of wind mills standing sentinal in Europe and in the US, plenty just not turning. Batteries guys? How can you drive an economy like that? Sorry folks, go home today, no electricity to drive the manufacturing process..

It's going to be a mix of processes and as I have said before, the other economies are beginning to be driven to provide future fuels. Government driven systems for tax and taxing you are a poor way to go. I have been interested to see arch socialist in The Melbourne Age, Kenneth Davison slamming Bracks on his direction in the editorial pages. I must say I had not expected to se that.