How long can we survive?

[2b]

The State government here in Victoria has a similar scheme , where you put up solor pannels on your roof , during the day you produce electricity and your meter runs backwards as you pump electricity into the grid, then at night your meter goes the other way as you suck back electricity from the grid. Needless to say your power bill/credit is the difference between the two. The government are offering subsidies for this , but when i looked into it the cost was going to be over $20,000 and it wouldn't have made me self sufficent (I'd still get a bill) , and $20,000 buys a lot of electricity.

I think the reason our figures wouldn't be as dramatic as the Netherlands , is big Industry . This argument is trotted out to support the Kyoto decission , but goes along the lines of were a comodity based economy , we've got heaps of rocks and stuff that we dig out of the ground, process and send off shore to come back a shiny truck and cars. This process uses lots of energy , if we imported steel (metal) and made stuff I'm sure we would have signed up Kyoto and be seen as doing our bit.Funny thing is that Russia has signed up to the Kyoto protocol , and you would of thought that they were a similar comodity based ecconomy as ours ? But then they've got nuclear energy , so carbon emissions aren't so much of an issue.

[Torsten]

Most nuclear countries only get about 10% of their energy from nuclear. So we would have to double each countries nuclear capacity (and waste) to produce just another 10%. MOst european countries have committed to producing at least 10% of power with renewable resources over the next 10 years. Germany I think went as far as 50% in 20 years. So you see, there are obviously ways of producing 10, 20 or even 50% green power without resorting to nuclear.

The problem with nuclear is that it can only ever be a temporary solution. And for the longer we rely on this temporary solution, the more problems pile up. Problems that don't go away for 10s of thousands of years.

I don't really care of nuclear power plants are safe from earthquakes etc. For the tiny amount of nuclear energy we have produced we have had wayyyyy to many leaks and accident. And no matter how safe a power plant is, the waste that needs to be shipped around the globe is never safe. Look at the dramas that arose from the collapse of the soviet union and the dispersal of nuclear material. If nuclear power is accepted as an option then many many more countries will insist on this source of energy. We can't demand that Iran and North Korea cease their nuclear ambitions if we can't even keep ours under control. And of all the nations the US has dispersed more nuclear material into the environment than any other. Not much difference whether we kill people slowly by contamination or fast with a bomb or leak.

Nuclear power might be an option for a more enlightened species, but I do not think it is good for us. So far nuclear power has been the most expensive power option. I guess over the next decade the environmental taxes will make nuclear power one of the cheapest. And I think this is the main motivating factor. We have to start looking at what's good for the planet, not just what's good for the bottom line.

Solar power is a long way off, so is tidal power. Wind power is now a really good option in some areas. If governments and companies poured some real money into their research I think they could all become viable alternatives.

There is no reason why any household needs to be connected to the grid. New solar panels last for about 20 years now and in mass production would cost a fraction of what they cost now. So if a system for a small household costs about 20K now, then at large scale it would probably be less than 5K. Anyway, if you do the maths it all makes sense. If the power bill for a small house it about $150 per month, then in 20 years that would be $36,000. For $36,000 you can already get a solar system that will not limit a small family in their consumption. So at mass production levels you would get double or quadruple of the current system!

If you look at it this way then it is criminal that not all new houses are built with compulsory solar systems. And the houses in the cities could be linked into the grid to supply their excess power to the industries.

So what's stopping us? $36,000! Once environmental taxes come into play in the next decades these 36K will look like pocket money. So the sooner we can make every household selfsufficient the better for all of us and our economy. But we lack the foresight and political will. Just look at the NSW green power scheme. I mean apart from the fact that it is ridiculous that we get charged extra for using green power, 18 months after green power was introduced they celebrated their 1000's member. We have what, about a million households in NSW? Of this only 1000 signed up to green power. That's only 0.1%. Our problem is simply greed. Each and every one of us cold be doing the right thing already by using green power and all it costs is about 10% extra on your monthly bill. And yet, for a measly $60 per year almost everyone chooses to keep adding CO2 to the cycle. We have to stop looking at weak and fleeting governments to solve our problems. We have to sort them out ourselves. How can a government expect that you pay 10% more for your power if we show them that we do not accept such an option.

We've been on 100% green power from the first week it started and you can't imagine how frustrating I find that no one else bothers with it.

[Benzedrine]

Hmm... I've worked in eletrical or related fields for most of my working life. Just my point of view.

I've got to say that a lot more research gets done into renewable power then people realise. I can say at least from what I've seen and heard, the government has wasted large sums of money on pointless solar power and other projects. I swear once at a western power workshop I saw a $1500 engine use a $150 fuel cell to power a small fan. Oh and wind power is a nightmare, it requires back up diesel generators running at idle in the background which is so ineffiecent that goes a long way to reducing any environmental benefit derived. Also wind power is loud as hell and is bad airline radar.

I would really like to see renewable energy as the predominant source of energy, but doing things without the technology to back them up becomes a false economy. I hope someone proves me wrong but I think we are at least 10 years from seeing any actually sucessful power generation from renewable energy. Alot of people think there is no research being done on renewable energy because they see so little success come from it but unfortunatly the failure not from lack of trying.

Torsten: I don't mean to be rude here. But I really can't see how you can say there's no need for any house to be on the grid. I'm just honestly interested in where this statement comes from. I can't see how power would be stored in the individual house. Would we have large flywheels in peoples basements or capacitor/invertor banks. Or do you mean people should go without things like electric lighting at night.

Personally I wouldn't trust the government with atoaster or anything more complicated. But coal kills people in mining, it generates large amounts of radiation and creates a waste product. Really the coal power station is a big old dinosaur that spews forth a constant stream of noxious clouds. Nuclear power doesn't seem nearly as bad to me.

[Torsten]

Originally posted by Benzedrine:

I've got to say that a lot more research gets done into renewable power then people realise.

I've been interested in this field for 20 years and stay abreast of developments. Much has happened in the last 10 years since BP decided oil was not its future. Recently shell also decided this and since then development is almost twice as fast. All it took was a bit of money and corporate goodwill (in the absence of government goodwill).

I can say at least from what I've seen and heard, the government has wasted large sums of money on pointless solar power and other projects.

Agreed. This is because they did not invest at the right time and had to run with stuff that was still in its infancy. It's the bain of any shortsighted government.

I swear once at a western power workshop I saw a $1500 engine use a $150 fuel cell to power a small fan.

You might have done. But what's the point of stating so? There are many profitable power generation schemes in australia and many many more overseas. Pulling up one lame duck doesn't help anyone. Even if half of the projects were crap, can we really afford not to try them?

Oh and wind power is a nightmare, it requires back up diesel generators running at idle in the background which is so ineffiecent that goes a long way to reducing any environmental benefit derived. Also wind power is loud as hell and is bad airline radar.

Don't know about the radar bit, but the rest is not valid. Generators are only required if it is a standalone system. If however it feeds into the grid it would simply just supply power whenever it is windy. Most single power generation methods require backup for thwne the 'fuel' runs out. That doesn't mean they can't contribute to the grid!

If you say winpower is noisy then you are probably talking about turbines from 10 years ago. The new generation of slow turbines is almost inaudible and does not kill birds.

To compare and evaluate technologies we have to always look at the cutting edge, not at what it was like 10 years ago.

I would really like to see renewable energy as the predominant source of energy, but doing things without the technology to back them up becomes a false economy.

A false economy is using power that is generated without accounting for the true costs. The CO2 we spill into the air at the moment will cost us very very dearly int he future. Both in social terms as well as economic terms. If these costs were added to the cost of conventional power we would suddenly see alternative power as cheap sources. Again, our current cheap power is only cheap because we are shortsighted.

But I agree, MUCH more research needs to be done into alternative power. I mean, look at how far windpower has come in the last decade (it is now much cheaper than solar wheras 10 years ago it was about 5x the cost of solar).

I hope someone proves me wrong but I think we are at least 10 years from seeing any actually sucessful power generation from renewable energy.

We already produce a fair amount by renewable sources. Isn't it about 10%? Might only be 2%. Have to check. But that is australia. And somewhere along the way we missed the ball. Other countries are running alternative power projects on a commercial basis (ie companies are actually making money from the power generated) so obviously we are not far off from making it viable. I think we have about 10 years of catching up to do. Now, how long has howard been in power.....?

Alot of people think there is no research being done on renewable energy because they see so little success come from it but unfortunatly the failure not from lack of trying.

IN oz almost all alt power research is done by private companies like Shell and BP. 10 years ago most research was done by the CSIRO. And no, in comparison to other technologies we are investing pittance into alt energy techs.

Torsten: I don't mean to be rude here. But I really can't see how you can say there's no need for any house to be on the grid. I'm just honestly interested in where this statement comes from. I can't see how power would be stored in the individual house. Would we have large flywheels in peoples basements or capacitor/invertor banks. Or do you mean people should go without things like electric lighting at night.

WOW, didn't you say you worked in electricity? Have you never seen a solar set up? Do you think all the people on solar power go to sleep when the sun sets? You sure you know what you are talking about?

The most expensive part of the solar system is the power storage. This is where some real research is needed. But even with what we have it is quite possible to store all the power you need for about 10K. I have several yippie (yuppie x hippie) friends who are on solar out of conviction. They have money, so they can afford to put in 36K systems. A 36K system will easily maintain a 6 BR house with all mod cons incl swimming pool etc (except airconditioning and heating). Poeple actually live this lifestyle and have no limitations. I would not be advising this if I didn't know it was possible. But my main point is that mass production would decrease these prices dramatically. It would also stimulate more research and hence better products.

Nuclear power doesn't seem nearly as bad to me.

I lived near a nuclear power plant for the first 15 years of my life. It is a constant source of anxiety. There are constantly radioactive leaks from powerplants, but these days most of them don't get reported in the media. I still have books that documented the changes caused by nuclear power to the local environment in germany, like rises in water temperature from the cooling systems, a 5000% increase in tumours on fish living downstream of nuclear plants, roads being blocked by military to escort nuclear fuel to and from the power station etc etc. I never want to have one of those anywhere near me again. The fact that australia didn't have nuclear power plants was one of the main reasons why my parents migrated to australia and not canada.

As for accidents in coal mining, don't you think there are any accidents in uranium mining? What about all the radioactive exposure accidents in the reactors? Maybe you should do more reading about nuclear power and associated industries. But yeah, coal sucks. My point is we need to move away from fossil fuels asap regardless of cost, but we should not be so foolish to go for nuclear.

[ 21. June 2005, 18:10: Message edited by: Torsten ]

[nabraxas]

agree w/Torsten

the nuclear industry has a terrible safety record, just do a search for "nuclear leaks" on google.

"United Kingdom: Revealed: huge Sellafield leak went undetected for 9 months

Full scale disclosed of worst nuclear accident for decade. Catalogue of human error led to massive radioactive discharge. Accident may force ministers to shut troubled plant for good"

"Nuclear waste from this facility has turned the Irish sea into one of the most radioactive bodies of water in the world. This pollution threatens the health of the British people as well as inhabitants of Ireland across the Irish Sea."

"Britain said this week it might have to dump radioactive pollution stockpiled at its Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant into the Irish Sea after 2006 as tanks storing the waste age and may become unsafe.

Environment Minister Michael Meacher said the government was researching ways to store the waste permanently onland but if this was not successful, then the radioactive liquid technetium-99 kept in offshore tanks may be dumped in the sea.

"If the tanks can't take it beyond 2006, then we might have to look at an alternative solution... to discharge (their contents) into the Irish Sea quickly," Meacher told a news conference."

& all the extra radiation in the envoiroment has consequences

"Following interest in childhood leukemia near nuclear sites generated by the reports of a ten-fold excess in Seascale near BNFL Sellafield in 1984 (Gardner and Winter, 1984), studies were made of populations near Dounreay (Heasman et al., 1986) and also Aldermaston and Burghfield (Roman et al., 1987). Initial investigations of childhood leukemia incidence in West Berkshire and North Hampshire regions by Roman and colleagues found a small but significant excess of childhood leukemia in the age group 0-14 RR = 1.3 p<.05 and in the 0-4 age group RR= 1.6, p<.01 relative to national averages. RR = risk relative to the national average. Looking inside areas 10 km from the nuclear sites the same authors found relative risks of 1.4 p<.001 and 2.0 p<.05 for the same age groups."

& then there's the possibility ov terrorism

"ENOUGH plutonium to make five nuclear bombs has gone missing from Sellafield in Cumbria in the past 12 months, it has been revealed. The official report which lists “materials unaccounted for” at the UK’s nuclear sites found that 19.1kg of the highly toxic substance was apparently missing from the reprocessing plant.

At the Dounreay plant in Caithness, meanwhile, the annual audit recorded a surplus 1.16kg of highly enriched uranium, which can also be used to make nuclear weapons."

& 1 final point, Chernobyl WAS NOT a nuclear explosion, it was an explosion caused by superheated steam, IF it had been a nuclear explosion half ov Europe would no longer exist.

[Benzedrine]

 

quote:

---

To compare and evaluate technologies we have to always look at the cutting edge, not at what it was like 10 years ago.

---

Sorry but I definately do not agree, whenever I'm making a statement its about actual systems in use today to generate power. Cutting edge systems are often years away from being a viable product, if they ever become a viable product at all.

 

quote:

---

 

Don't know about the radar bit, but the rest is not valid. Generators are only required if it is a standalone system. If however it feeds into the grid it would simply just supply power whenever it is windy.

---

No offense intended but this simply isn't how a real world wind power system works yet. First off it doesn't simply supply power when its windy, it supplies power only at a certain range of wind speeds. If the wind is actually too fast it has to switch off to avoid damaging the turbines.

I know that the albany wind farm requires some amount of electrical current to actually start generating power on its own. After it does generate power it needs a generator to run at idle to make sure that the grid will continue to be supplied if the wind runs out.

I have friends that live near actual grid connected wind generation turbines on the outskirts of Albany WA and they complain of the noise.

[2b]

We've got plenty of wind turbines down here on the coast in Yambuk (between Pt. Fairy and Portland ) it is true that they don't work when it gets to windy , i see it all the time. As for noise , well they are a fair bit off the road up on the 'dunes' but i can't say I've ever heard them even stopping a few hundred meters away and getting out of the car ?

The biggest issue with wind farms down here, and it is a hot issue is asthetics. Quite simply the public don't seem to want to look at them. At first i was in awe of these magestic big blades slowly turning in a hypnotic sort of way. Now days I'm still impressed by there size (friggin huge blades is an understatment) but the novalty is wearing off. Now if these were to cover the coast with out regulation i would get upset, could you imagine trying to put a wind farm near the light house in Byron Bay ? The old ' not in my back yard ' syndrome starts to kick in. Wind power is great , do you want a wind farm along your streach of coast ? I understand that it is also a big issue in Europe , tourists from Europe have been quoted in the local media saying they hardly have a streach of coast that hasn't been crammed full of turbines. The issue is that these turbines are owned by business , and business has no ethics - :"if it's legal it's ok". With huge subsidies and incentives being thrown at companies to make green power it's easy for everyone to get carried away. Only looking back once all is done are the true effects being felt.

[Rev]

I like the look of wind turbines

I saw a collection on the atherton tablelands near ravenshoe and would gladly live in line of sight

I would not however live near large powerlines or within 1000km of a nuclear power plant or dump

re:

quote:

---

wont work on a large scale as it needs care

---

Permaculture went up and it went down

a boom and bust that i think relates to the cult status. they took 2 guys vision and used it as a blueprint

permacultural fundamentalism?

Permaculture is not specifically a hippy or greenie or organic philosophy

but the word seems to have been hijacked by them

so i use the word not very often

at its core it certainly does work large scale

but people have overstated the link between diversity and stability

they tried to impose themsleves too much on the land and place too many exotic species into ecosystems that just wont stick because they are superficially connected. the result is failure of most and weed status with others

to make it work just forget the mandala gardens or

sheet mulching or honey locusts and get back to thinking about energy, water and nutrient cycling and flows in the whole landscape.

use less agressive local species plus the cultivars you know youll use and dont be afriad to chop out anything you dont use

thats its strength not the dogma

[Torsten]

Originally posted by Benzedrine:

Sorry but I definately do not agree, whenever I'm making a statement its about actual systems in use today to generate power. Cutting edge systems are often years away from being a viable product, if they ever become a viable product at all.

I did mean cutting edge, not R&D! There is a difference. Cutting edge technology is generally commercially available and in most cases more viable than their predecessors.

To put simply I mean that there is no point comparing technology that was built in australia 5 years ago, because in global terms that means it is probably more like 10 years old. Windpower technologies that are already the main commercial application in northern europe are barely considered here and will take another few years to actually become etsbalished here. And this is time that should not be wasted the way we do.

No offense intended but this simply isn't how a real world wind power system works yet. First off it doesn't simply supply power when its windy, it supplies power only at a certain range of wind speeds. If the wind is actually too fast it has to switch off to avoid damaging the turbines.

Again, stop living in the past. Windturbines these days are equiped with either aerodynamic stall technology or with pitching blades. The former works by designing the baldes to medium windspeed, but in a way that high windspeeds create turbulences at the rear of the blade that actually slow it down at the same rate that the shear speeds them up. The latter is much more efficient as it allows the blades to be pitched at the perfect angle according to the windspeed. This prevents excessive speed if they are parallel to the wind, but also have the added benefit of making use of low wind condition by pitching into the wind when needed. These have been standard technology in europe for over 5 years, hence my point about the futility of talking about old technologies. Presenting the shortcomings of the old turbines is irrelevant if these have been overcome.

I know that the albany wind farm requires some amount of electrical current to actually start generating power on its own. After it does generate power it needs a generator to run at idle to make sure that the grid will continue to be supplied if the wind runs out.

Albany might work like that, but who knows how old that technology is. Modern turbines do not need power to get started and they do not need power to get them through still periods. Furthermore they can now also produce power in high wind conditions thanks to the blade controls.

I have friends that live near actual grid connected wind generation turbines on the outskirts of Albany WA and they complain of the noise.

Chances are that these are the fast turbines then, which have been off the market for nearly a decade. They are not environmentally friendly as they chop up many birds and create too much noise. Using such old technologies for comparisons is like using a 1950's car in a discussion about exhaust emissions. The only purpose it serves is to show us just how quickly we can improve these technologies if the finances and political will are there.

[Torsten]

Did some research on the albany wind farm:

* It was build in 2000 so the technology is well out of date.

* It has 12 large turbines rated at 1200kw each

* It is estimated to supply 77 million KW per year which supplies 75% of the power consumed by the city of albany and hence all the power needs for about 15,000 homes.

* it saves 77,000 tonnes of CO2 per year.

* it starts to generate power from windspeeds of 7km/h (4 knots)

* it reaches maximum power output at 58km/h (31 knots)

* turbines stop at 130km/h (115 knots).

These figures show just how viable such a system really is. Sure, the cost is still quite high, but if we want to save the planet it is going to cost us a little. Negativity and false information won't get us there.

As for the visual impact, I personally would hate the sight, but would not oppose it if it was suggested for my area. Just because coal power stations are out of sight does not mean they don't exist, and I'd rather have some turbines in my precious view than a coal power station anywhere. We are going to have to accept that we will need to make some sacrifices to get clean power. Spoiling my view would be an insignificant issue in comparison to what is really at stake. Let's get realistic about these issues. Bottom line is that people are worried about their real estate values if they get turbines in their backyard. In the US they have a better solution. They use tracts of farmland for the turbines and pay the farmers rent for the tower space. Many farmers make more from the turbine space than from their crops! Because these are big farms, the visual impact is usually only for the owner of the land. It won't work like that everywhere, but I would think that there will be areas in australia where communities will get together to become communal power farmers. I hope they start in my area.

[Darklight]

Torsten:

As for the visual impact, I personally would hate the sight, but would not oppose it if it was suggested for my area.

If they're quiet, I have some neighbours I'd happily swap them for...

I'd 1000x much rather see turbines than some hidjus fucken subdivision with predigested houses and two hundred extra clueless drivers clogging up my road

[2b]

 

quote:

---

I would not however live near large powerlines or within 1000km of a nuclear power plant

---

Can anyone from Sydney tell me if real estate is cheaper near Lucas Hieghts ?

Back to the look of the turbines , the paradox is that it is the conservation groups that appose them in my area. Reality may well be that most of these groups are 'sea change' types that have cashed in and moved here from Melbourne so not a true reflection of 'local' public opinion.

I agree that this type of energy makes sense , i have a solar hot water system that rocks ! In the summer my quarterly gas bill is around $25-30 , goes up in the winter due to heating but. Energy consumption in general is probably a better way of takling the issue , if city dwellers keep insisting on building massive neo-tuscan monaliths that require air conditioning to make them livable in summer and have had no thought put into being effiecent with energy; just like the American odsession with SUVs' , well were all wasting our time .Like building more freeways to fix congestion on the roads , when a more sustainable approach would be to improve public transport.

So if we make heaps of green power , will people just use heaps more of it ? There would be no guilty feeling if you leave lights on or build an inefficent house that needs to have climate control 24/7.

So is it alright to squander green energy in inefficent ways ? Or do we need to address our consumption first , then the source of our energy second ?

[Torsten]

green energy is not perfect. burning wood will create pollution ht spots, windppower creates eyesores, solar panels require energy and materials to be manufactured and the batteries for individuals system use toxic (yet fully recyclable) chemicals. As long as there are downsides to the green power generation we still have a guilt factor. As I said, we've been on 100% green power for years, but that doesn't mean we waste it.

[gomaos]

Nuclear power is SHIT

It's almost always pushed by money-greedy, super-rich capitalists who don't care about the welfare of the people.

I remember large protests against the Nuclear power plant near my home town.

It was very bloody and violent, with ambulances doing overtime for many hours.

But no matter how many people protested, they built that stinky thing anyway.

Now it's been standing there for 30 years, when I visited last time I felt strong hate every time I went past it.

And it's impossible to overlook since it's so gigantic.

Why any people in their right mind would advocate nuclear power, I don't understand.

It's not about benefit for the people, it's only about benefit for unscrupolous, greedy, murderous bastards.

Like Torsten said, it maybe good for some other, more enlightened species but definitely not for humans.

No more nukes in Australia!

(that pissy research one in Sydney is bad enough!)

[ 23. June 2005, 03:36: Message edited by: gomaos ]

[Hagakure]

what about isotopes for reasearch and medicine.

in the labs we often use radioactively tagged nucleotides etc - very common technique and invaluable.

are these products made at lucas heights? - surely we need some type of nuclear reactor?

as for the dump in south australia if we are making the waste we better store it ourselves - middle of south australia is so barren and apparenlty the geology there is perfect for storing of radioactive waste.

i dont mind seeing it blocked though just to see the liberal party get angry :D

[waterdragon]

i agree with many of the sentiments expressed above, i feel the only way for society to move forward is to do so in a sustainable manner. less consumption. earn less, pay less tax. if fuel reaches a point where it's no longer worth purchasing(1.30 per litre here for diesel today) then people will have to get used to the idea that it may be worth providing your own food. at current rates of consumption, greed and stupidity i would predict the next growth industry to be self sufficiency- starting in the backyard.

already consultancy firms are springing up in the cities specialising in the integation of poultry, food gardens and rainwater. here we have chooks, ducks, guineas and geese. i've recently mastered goat milking and the amount of wild game getting about is spooky.

if we can't learn what it means to live sustainably then i'm betting the next big growth industry will be burials.

[occidentalis]

The blocking of the SA dump probably means there will need to be several small dumps spread around the country. I don't know which is worse.

As for green energy, our energy provider offers it at an extra cost. Our house signed up last year and found that it is just ordinary coal generated electricity but they plant a few trees to make up for the carbon, and send you glossy ads telling you 'the environment will love you'. I have not signed up in my new place as I can plant the trees myself and I prefer to reduce my consumption.

Perhaps in other states you can get genuinely green energy?

[Torsten]

hagakure - I don't have a problem with luca heights. I accept that we need a nuclear reactor for scientific purposes. The fact that they stuck it into the most populated city puzzles me though.

Nuclear power is totally uneconomical. It is very expensive if you consider the cost of securing or looking after waste for thousands of years. These costs are usually subsidised by the governments. If nuclear power received no subsidies at all no one would be interested in it.

creach - that sucks. I just had a look at the western power website and can't believe they expect people to pay for that. Our supplier Ergon energy gets power from wind, solar and biomass. It's a bit more expensive than what you have in WA, but at least it is truely made from renewable energy.

[Hagakure]

Torsten:

hagakure - I don't have a problem with luca heights. I accept that we need a nuclear reactor for scientific purposes. The fact that they stuck it into the most populated city puzzles me though.

Nuclear power is totally uneconomical. It is very expensive if you consider the cost of securing or looking after waste for thousands of years. These costs are usually subsidised by the governments. If nuclear power received no subsidies at all no one would be interested in it.

yeah its location is a little strange

i think we are in agreement on this one

[narayan]

I remember hearing about some sort of geothermal power plant that was beeing built in the outback somewhere where they drilled a really deep hole into the hot bedrock and then poured water in the hole and used the steam that came up to power a turbine.

What concerns me the most about the future is how quickly the western world could disintegrate when oil prices become so high that the average joe can't afford to drive his SUV down to the McDonalds to buy a meal containing twice his average allowable fat and cholesterol intake and devoid of any essential vitamins and minerals then going and doing a job he hates so that he can buy a new TV that he will spend the majority of his free time watching pointless crap.

Whatever happens in the future with the worlds energy situation i'm sure we will come out of it the better, even if it is a struggle for some.

[ 23. June 2005, 17:15: Message edited by: narayan ]

[Torsten]

Originally posted by narayan:

Whatever happens in the future with the worlds energy situation i'm sure we will come out of it the better, even if it is a struggle for some.

I think the point of discussions like this one is to prepare people for such a time of change. Some people will blindly follow the current model until it collapses, while others will have some sort of back up or at least be aware of their options.

Many decisions Daniel and I have made over the last decade have been with such drastic change in mind. For example, we have a diesel and a petrol car so that we can make use of either biodiesel or ethanol if fossil fuel runs out or becomes too expensive. I have educated myself on how to make both of these to engine grade and have the lab skills to do so. Over the next few years we will grow our first oil crops and make our own biodiesel. It will be totally uneconomical while diesel is $1.10, but at $2.20 it already look quite competitive and at $3.00 we will be miles ahead. I would think we will hit $3 within 5 years - 10 maximum, and from there the sky is the limit and panic buying starts.

I have also set up several solar systems with friends, so if the state power options do not improve in terms of greener power, then we will set up our own. I'd actually prefer to support the public utilities in this because I'd like them to get encouragement for their green efforts.

We are pretty well prepared for the collapse of the energy society and in 5 years we will be fully ready for it. We know many others who are also well prepared. We even know some totally non-green people who have full independent solar & wind systems which they are not using, but keep in readiness for when the crunch comes. So, even non-green capitalists are getting ready.

If I was to build my own home in the burbs I would definitely set it up with solar power. Look at how the Qld and SA power grid has disintegrated under privatisation. This alone is enough to get your independent power source. The good thing about being on the grid and having solar at the same time is that you can be as wasteful as you want while everyone else is also being wasteful, but you will still have a lower power bill and you can be assured to always have a minimum of power no matter what the grid does. So, you don't have to be green to invest in solar. Simply being independent is enough of a motivation.

[ 23. June 2005, 22:26: Message edited by: Torsten ]

[Rev]

 

quote:

---

middle of south australia is so barren and apparenlty the geology there is perfect for storing of radioactive waste.

---

quote:

---

The fact that they stuck it into the most populated city puzzles me though.

---

Its for points like this that i say put the fucking dump under sydney CBD and the reactor on the skyline next to the harbour bridge and opera house

Its high time the consumers dealt with their own rubbish locally and stopped palming it off to remote communities

the attitudes been shell be right

put it outback

nothing there but rocks, dingo piss and a few blackfellas

but when i see that area of SA they wanted to use im amazed by its beauty

far from a wasteland its a true wilderness and very much alive in biology and in history by the inhabitants who still know the country

like i said if you want a wasteland look no further than any cbd - grotty bitsa unloved and unsentimental places that they are.

let those cunts deal with their own fucking overconsumption in situ

[drellion]

No one wants to talk about real alternative energy it seems, not even here.

Talk to the hand..... ok

[ 28. June 2005, 18:59: Message edited by: drellion ]

[Hagakure]

Rev:

 

quote:

---

middle of south australia is so barren and apparenlty the geology there is perfect for storing of radioactive waste.

---

quote:

---

The fact that they stuck it into the most populated city puzzles me though.

---

Its for points like this that i say put the fucking dump under sydney CBD and the reactor on the skyline next to the harbour bridge and opera house

Its high time the consumers dealt with their own rubbish locally and stopped palming it off to remote communities

the attitudes been shell be right

put it outback

nothing there but rocks, dingo piss and a few blackfellas

but when i see that area of SA they wanted to use im amazed by its beauty

far from a wasteland its a true wilderness and very much alive in biology and in history by the inhabitants who still know the country

like i said if you want a wasteland look no further than any cbd - grotty bitsa unloved and unsentimental places that they are.

let those cunts deal with their own fucking overconsumption in situ

thats a bit of a simplistic look.

have a read of this

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news159.html

[Rev]

Hagakure:

thats a bit of a simplistic look.

i dont think it is

they can argue and justify and try to placate all they want but at the end of the day

even 'safe' nuclear power or 'low risk' waste is never going to be built or stored in rich peoples neighbourhoods

as for

 

quote:

---

There are no scientific, only political, reasons (against such a storage facility).

---

weeeell where does one start?

thats the kind of statemnet that ignores the fact that NO scientific conclusion is free of the bias of the interepter or free from the errors of the experiment

RISK - is a parameter set entirely by human hand

ALL science is political because the experimnetal design and the interpretation of the results ocurs within the world view of the scientist

so dont let them hide behind science as some nobler than thou cause

Those against it can also call on science and the inumerable real life cases of radioactive contamination and its long term effects

but as i said its primarily a matter of who pays and who benefits

same as GMO foods

thats not a scientific issue either

its a social one

and just the same end question too

why do we have to risk losing our future for your short term luxury?