I am a believer in climate change. I was wondering if the water levels are about to rise dramatically or if they have already started.
Saltier,dryer salt lakes ,stronger desert winds, 
I shall start my guilt trip now, Lake Lefroy just gets better and better as it all dries up for longer periods.
I have applied for an 18 panel solar array on my roof as compensation for the gift from the planet.
if water does rise there will be more space to kiteboard around the town and streets so its all good, go global warming
I can't read the article. But i suppose it says we are all doomed.
Nothing has really been done about it yet...
The way i see it is that nuclear power is the only reasonable source of green power at the moment.
Ps. About rising water levels. It makes not difference if the whole Arctic melts. The sea levels won't rise. It's if/when greenland (or is it iceland? That big ice country near the top) melts we need to worry.
Apart from the getting the uranium (which australia has lots of) and transporting it/refining. There are no CO2 emissions. And coal has all of these things done as well.
Nuclear power also produces less radiation than coal power plants.
Also, it takes 17ton of coal to produce the power that 1ton of uranium does, so much less travelling is needed for the same amount of energy.
They had to also build coal power stations at some stage, and they are continuing to build more. And the current plan is the retro fit the current coal stations with geosequestration thingys. Which would also be hugely expensive/complex to build. And they are over 20years away. (meaning, they aren't even designed yet).
We need a solution now, and nothing else is ready. Nuclear power is proven. It's safe, it's reliable, and it is clean. The only problem is hte waste. But i recon a really deep hole (>10km) would be sufficient. The stuff thats down there now is already radioactive.
I worked out that a complete substitute of our current coal plants in the year 2020 would save us 286,105,804 tonnes of CO2 per year.Thats factoring in the need of more power every year. And accounting for the different CO2 outputs of black and brown coal. Also assuming no advance in coal burning technology.
Thats my reasoning.
Solar is rubbish, wind would be a gigantic mission (i have some numbers on that).
The only other power i think would be good is geothermal, but still not as good as nuclear.
They are also developing nuclear fission. Which would be awesome. No waste, no emissions, massive amounts of power for very little amounts of H3 (one of the most abundant molecules in the universe).
Nice stats, but you said "nuclear is the only green energy source atm"
How is nuclear waste 'green'?
How is substituting one enviromental problem caused by poor energy choices with another progress?
Will humanity continue to use poor technologies until the 'next big environmental crisis' cannot be 'cured' by humans?
Is nuclear waste is 'green' shall we bury it under you vegie patch? Or is it okay, because it will be under someone elses vegie patch (but not if your the somone else)?
How is stuff that is 10kn down radioactive?
Aus has lots of uranium, near places like kakadu, lets mine all of it, that wont have other (less currently media important) environmental isssues will it?
Saying 'nuclear has no CO2 emmissions' after you say you need to use diesel to mine it is contradictory
Nuclear power is safe, just ask the ex-residents of Chernoble (sp?)!
Clean is not mining using carbon energies to fuel machines
Do we need a solution NOW, or the right solution SOON?
What about tidal, wave, hydro, biofuels (the waste materials not the grown purposely ones) for other renewables?
So we need one 'silver bullit' technology, or would it be smarter to have a swathe?
How is solar rubbish? More solar energy falls on mine sites then is taken out it (per year)
Shall we wait for nuclear fission then?
Just posing questions.
Stuff in the earth has to be radioactive. Thats why geothermal energy in australia would be good. Because radiation heats the rocks 5km down.
It also has to be radioactive because many materials have half lifes of millions of years.
I personally wouldn't mind Australia burrying OUR OWN waste, deep underground. Once it is proven to be safe. I would also happily live next door to a powerplant if i had to. Apart from the fact it's ugly, it wouldn't bother me much. But coal stations are also ugly. And i wouldn't live next to one of them.
Chernoble was a major stuff up. The russians were told that it would cause it to go pear shaped, yet they did the experiment anyway. And as far as i can remember noone actually died immediately from the accident, apart from 2 people that screwed up.But ongoing effects are a problem, but a reactor that is operated properly won't have a problem like that.
And at the moment there is no form of energy that is "clean". Because mineral mining, and construction is needed for it all. But that is likely to improve with the construction of electric vehicles, that can run off nuclear power. (electrical vehicles now are pointless. Just using the fossil fuel elsewhere).
Solar is rubbish because to power australia we would need 500km^2 of solar panels. That is not going to happen. And night time is a problem they are also yet to solve. We only get 1000Wm-2 of sunlight on a good day near the equator. It's not that much really.
Tidal, wave and hydro power probably have their place. But i doubt they will be able to create the power from a reasonably sized machine to run the country. I don't know enough about biofuel, but i can't imagine burning that being very good for the atmosphere.
Oh well bed time. Exam on this tomorrow
. Thanks for the revision
Ps, by only green source, i meant the only one ready to go. Nothing else is good enough yet to completely take over power production.
No, exams are Wed. haha, can agree on anything!
There is radioactive ground, then there is uranium (enriched)
Tens of thousands have died as a result of Chernoble, just because only 2 died straight away, does this mean we can just pack up Sydney and leave (and pretend that everyone already affected wont have huge issues for generations)
What you exam on? Hope its related! Mines on water ecology (keep your nuclear stuff outta it!) Goodluck in exam
According to the CSIRO experts climate change as in global warming will mean southern Australia gets drier, droughts are more frequent, punctuated by infrequent heavy rains. Northern Australia will receive more rainfall on average while southern Australia becomes arid.
However I really don't think thats much different to what the Australian environment is like now. Henry Lawson wrote about the drought of 1890s, how tough life was out west around the Darling.
Not sure about sea levels. I can see no evidence of rising sea levels. You would think if temperatures rise a bit in Antarctica then precipitation would increase, thereby locking up more water into ice.
All in all, global warming would be much much better than global cooling.
So if we want to be green and environmentally friendly, why haven't we progressed down this path?http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/scripts98/9820/thoriumscpt.htm
Maybe not enough Mr C ash in it for the top end crowd
When people mention that "nuclear power" would be the answer to our problems,
I then mention how many power stations would Austalia need? and are you going to distribute the power?
Lets assume that each state would need at least 2 station main & backup and with 7 states (including NT) thats 14 "nuclear power" stations MINIUM.
Now the cable system for the power would need a total upgrade to handle the massive potential loads.... right?
And then say in 20-25 years time when the maintenance is perhaps not quite up to scratch (think about the condition of the roads in Australia) and run by the government? or do we privatize it? (think ABC child care)
The concept of "nuclear power" actually concerns me, not for the safety now but in the future.....
At least with wind, solar, hot rock etc all adding smaller amounts of power to the grid, would actually a much safer and reliable system for all in Australia
It'smore like 25 reactors. Because 5 would do 17% of our power (so ive been told). But i'm sure more than one can be built on one site, like multiple reactors?.
They don't actually bury nuclear waste yet. It is all stored above ground. (Or at least the majority of it is). The containers they are in are "expected" to last 100yrs. The reasoning behind this, is that in 100yrs time the scientists think it is likely a solution to storing the waste will have been thought up.
They currently have a pretty cool plan to deal with it. The want to bury it in subduction zones in the earths crust, beneath the ocean. This way the waste would be slowly sucked into the mantle, where it would just cycle around for a coupla millions years.
It would be a massive jobs. Going thousands of metres beneath the ocean, then they have to dig thousands more to get deep enough to do this.
Why talk about nuclear power in Australia anyway? If countries like Germany and Denmark can start using solar and wind power to generate electricity then Australia should be able to do it too. Sure people talk about baseloads and how renuables can't meet them. Exactly the same argument could be put towards coal fired power stations if there were not enough of them around.
From what I understand the way we use power has peaks and troughs. So the electricity companies have be prepared for the peaks probably at 7pm and on hot days when everyone has their airconditioning on.
An alternative will be to create a system where electricty is generated by renuable sources during the day or whenever its windy. This electricity is stored in batteries or some other system such as pumping water uphill to a dam. When the electricity is needed then the energy is released.
Where will all the batteries be? Possibly electric cars that have the capacity to store electricity when there is an excess in the network, and then discharge when there is a shortage. So you could charge your car up in the early morning when everyone is asleep. If you were not using the car then it could discharge its power during the day or in the evening. You would make a profit on buying cheap electricity and selling expensive electricity.
What does climate change mean for Australia? If some form of carbon tax is introduced, climate change will make most of us poorer. The carbon traders and governments will be richer. So climate change will mean that income is redistributed.
i am all for green also,
certainly there are lots of options on the table. solar, thermal, wind and nuclear all seem to be the good options.
the nuclear debate has moved on from the dangerous super reactor which has the potential to cause so much damage.
they are now made in mini form
www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html
www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
there is also new technology for both wind and solar which make it more worthwhile.
the video link at the top basically says that with the current governments levels of reduction we will loose the northern end of the great barrier reef, kakadu, the ski fields etc in the next 20-30 years.
i think it suggested that this outcome was the good outcome if we can achieve 550 parts but the projections are suggesting it will be more like 750 parts and therefor worse. either way the experts are saying we have gone beyond a good point now.
the "negative" experts are saying extinction is approaching (not sure i agree). there is some data to back this up though. off the top of my head i think we are currently running at 30% extinction already. that's why people are currently scouring the globe recording flora and fauna dna maps.
the ice sheets sliding into the sea is bad. off the top of my head a couple of hundred feet bad.
there are lots of positives here also
by 2010 it is rumoured that electric and hydrogen cars will be sold to the masses
a clean coal power plant is being built in qld
the building industry is completely onboard with green design. there are guidlines, laws and legislation for all forms of construction and these reg are being tightened every year.
the environment is now top of the list of public concern.
the depression we are heading into is an opportunity to reset the clocks. hopefully the next industrial age will be driven by clean power. it seems to be heading this way so i am very hopefull.
i've done my own thing to help out also.
my home doesn't require heating or cooling year round due to design.
the garden doesn't need watering
i use public transport
i use energy saving devices
AND I WINDSURF....
electricity.
A mate doing a study on alternatives to coal plants told me today that Australia's uranium deposits would only last to 2030
Think of the break even, why would we bother?
Just end up something else to buy from overseas, like the rest of our imports, we already have a huge import to export ratio don't we?
Apparently, if the whole world hypothetically suddenly switched to nuclear, within less than ten years all the high grade uranium would be used, and nuclear would become much less efficient.
Wouldnt it be great if the billions of dollars of subsidies the nuclear industry gets were given to real green energy solutions.
While solar and wind are not as efficient currently, the technology is catching up.
We will have to switch to solar and wind soemtime in hte future, we may as well do it now before we ruin anymore.....good windsurfing spots
a little thought on acting locally, however trivial a part it may play in the big picture. having windsurfed professionally in the '90s i know a bit about the carbon footprint of lugging that gear around and the toxicity of manufacturing and disposing of it.
cut to this year: i hadn't done much water sport at all since '97 until i had the chance to jump on a sailboard again earlier this year. enter my conundrum: i love being on the water, going fast, getting air, being in beautiful settings, and yet i know the cost of these resource-intensive pleasures.
enter kitesurfing: the gear is small, and what there is has fewer nasty resins and foams, but best of all, i don't need a car. i realise not everyone can jump on a tram to stkilda or a train to brighton or altona, but those of us who could use public transport to go kiting, and yet continue to drive, might give this some thought.
again, when faced with megalomaniacal chumps in hummers towing jetskis and trailbikes, or equally, with the carbon footprint of kitesurfers and windsurfers who constantly fly and drive around the world, then this is perhaps a drop in the ocean of desirable change, but the psychological shift to a bit of mindfulness and humility in our daily resource use will, i suspect, resonate beyond the initial changes in behaviour.
i believe that all of us in the affluent world will have to get used to less energy-intensive ways of life. whether we (especially the most affluent and energy-hungry of our species) make this transition voluntarily and soon, or whether we wait for the rude shock of peak oil and other resource limits to kick our selfish arses even harder, will be one of the most interesting and challenging choices we may ever make, individually and collectively.
see you on the water, and on the tram,
brendan
Interesting article about the science, politics and sociology surrounding climate change:
www.smh.com.au/national/beware-the-church-of-climate-alarm-20081127-gdt4es.html?page=fullpage
Professor Plimer likens climate change scientists to creationist scientist by ignoring evidence that doesn't fit in with their models. He also says what people analysing data behind super computers are measuring is urbanisation, not climate change. However it could be argued as more land is becoming urbanised, this affects the local climate on a larger level.
The central problem advocates of human induced climate change ignore, are all the inputs on our climate. Clearly the sun and the Earth's orbit around it has more affect on the Earth's climate than all of our activities.
Historically global warming has led to abundance - proliferation of vegetation and animals. In a way it seems odd that we struggle to reject the gift.
H.L. Mencken: “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”... Or Tax
Given the choice between global warming and a new ice age I´ll take global warming thanks ...
