Comments on: Sweden to be oil free by 2030

By: dave

dave — Mon, 25 May 2009 10:18:35 +0000

ya’s can argue till ur blue in the face, point is ur all right, it is a safer, cleaner power source, although we do need to find a way to properly dispose of the waste material, proper testing etc needs to be done before we can figure out how to dispose of it, who knows we might even end up finding a use for it

By: lazybones

lazybones — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:48:34 +0000

“http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD…..079095.pdf”

Bloodyhell, that is a serious read Simon. My head imploded after page 4. I might need some light comical reading now, like Wheels magazine

By: NacaYoda

NacaYoda — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:46:23 +0000

I remember an old episode of “Beyond 2000″ (Australia) which was always highlighting cool upcoming technologies before they hit the shelves. One was a car stereo enhancement that hooked up to the alternator and your car stereo (with other microphones and such) and broadcast whitenoise and fake engine sounds to effectively cancel out all exterior engine noise being created by your buzz-box and overlaying “the awesome” Ferrari (or insert other exotic car) engine noise inside the cabin.

Result? No matter what crappy car you owned, occupants only ever heard a supercar under your hood. Not only could you toggle between a raft of different engine notes, the revs were matched perfectly.

How did this idea not take off? And when will it be integrated into electric engined cars

By: Simon

Simon — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:42:57 +0000

Well put Lazybones.

By: lazybones

lazybones — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:29:48 +0000

“Sweden plans to get the vast majority of it’s power from nuclear and hydro. Sweden is leading nothing they have taken the EASY way out.”

As I pointed out earlier with renewables alone (Hydro+Others, NO NUCLEAR), they are still producing nearly 10 times the amount of green energy Australia produces. That is impressive.

“What should be focused on is finding cheaper sources of energy not just to reduce CO2 emissions”

Just looking for the cheaper options and ignoring Co2 emissions is whats got us in the sh*t in the first place, Australia already has a vast amount of renewables available. What its lacking is support and investment.

I’ll give you a point for at least posting a link to a reputable source, unfortunately page 2 of the article you posted discredits the Mars theory. Not to mention our climate is driven by Ocean activity not just solar radiation, so why anyone would compare our problems with Mars is beyond me.

“Id rather have some sort of explosion fueled by anything flammable under my bonnet because it sounds better than some lame whirring from an electric motor. ”

I too enjoy the rumble from my engine, I love driving manual and hate automatic cars. But at the same time, I like the idea of Max Torque from 0 rpm and giving OPEC the flick.

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:13:29 +0000

http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000079095.pdf

Interesting read – and not pro-nuclear either.

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:07:31 +0000

I agree with your last comment entirely.
However,
“I do know that the scenario that you were talking about would be inherently risky…..”
I’m afraid the bad news for you is they have been mining like this for years. It was develped in the ’70s
“In situ leaching (ISL), also known as solution mining, involves leaving the ore where it is in the ground, and using liquids which are pumped through it to recover the minerals out of the ore by leaching. Consequently there is little surface disturbance and no tailings or waste rock generated. However, the orebody needs to be permeable to the liquids used, and located so that they do not contaminate groundwater away from the orebody.”
http://www.uranium1.com/indexu.php?section=uranium%20projects&page=7
The good news for you is they are monitored by geologists and the EPA. They wouldn’t be doing it if it could be demonstrated it was a substantial risk to people or the environment.

Dan, the radiation leakage from nuclear waste is minimised by a number of processes which I already mentioned. It does not represent a risk to anyone unless they were to spend time in the immediate vicinity of the waste storage containers. Certainly it is much higher than normal environmental radiation, but it’s not stored anywhere near people or animals. Do you need to worry about being radiated by nuclear power plant waste? No. The only people who would need to be worried about it are the people trained to handle it safely. Do you think they would be doing their job if it was a high risk? Moderate risk even? Low risk perhaps?
Safety-wise I’d rather work in a nuclear power station than an oil refinery of coal-powered station.

By: HAL

HAL — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:57:25 +0000

Simon, OK, let’s do the, “I’m more qualified than you to discuss this issue” thing. I work in a field that investigates, maps and models contaminant behaviour in soil & groundwater, examines hydrogeolical conditions in contamination plumes etc, so I also know a thing or two about migration of contamination in the sub-strata. And although I know nothing about radiation in atsmoshperic conditions, I do know that the scenario that you were talking about would be inherently risky i.e. introducing enormous amounts of water to create a slurry of concentrated uranium for harvesting purposes scares me to death, simply because no amount of infrastructure would enable you to guarantee that this concentrated form of ‘contamination’ could be controlled. It would be environmentally devastating if a loss of containment occurred. The introduction of the vast quantities of water (which would come from where by the way?) to flush out these uranium seams would likely result in raising the level of the underlying groundwater to levels where it could encounter a more permeable strata capable of mobilising the contaminant great distances under ground, and potentially contaminating groundwater reserves for indefinable periods of time, thus making them useless for all peoposed uses.

Anyway, I didn’t want to get into a debate where we puff out our chests and prove how intelligent we all are, just trying to point out that the global warming debate is fraught with people on either side who can’t consider both sides of the argument in fact.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:01:21 +0000

Simon, how much more radiation is there in nuclear waste, versus background radiation?? You can’t compare the two and say there’s no difference. That’s what you seem to be implying…

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:54:15 +0000

Hal, what do you think happens when it rains? When the earth’s crust moves? When the ocean erodes the land?
You are fogetting radioactive substances occur naturally all over the world. It is not as static as you seem to believe.
You are right it’s easy to make up facts – my point exactly. That’s why I did research, try it for yourself.
I could reference every fact for you but I’m sure no one would care. If you do your own research you will discover the same information.
I work in a field of ionising radiation and have extensive safety training on such. Am I saying nuclear power is perfectly safe? That would be foolish, but realise energy from nuclear sources represents a far lower raditation risk to the public than the daily bombardment you receive from the sun. The environment around you, believe it or not, is emitting radiation. You eat food which comes from the earth, and guess what? it has traceable radiation levels. People working with ionising radiation sources will receive a higer dose than the public, but the levels are still extremely low.
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/
have a look!