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

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 ;)

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.

Interesting read – and not pro-nuclear either.

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.

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.

For example, where Simon quoted this information in one of his comments above:

“Uranium is sourced through a variety of means. In WA they have seams of “yellow cake” a uranium concentrate.It is extracted by pumping water into the seams where the water dissolves it. The slurry is then removed and transported for refining. Most of the water is reused. It is a very efficient process.”

Well, I take issue with this because it probably isn’t a very efficient process. Based on the description of this extraction process, there would seem to be no guarantee that 100% containment of the water being pumped into the ‘yellow cake’ seams. This is particulalry dangerous because there would be an extraordinary risk of leaching of uranium through the pumped water, and if not 100% contained it would simply leach down to deeper levels within the soil/rock profile and end up in the groundwater reserves. I’d asusme that the groundwater reservoirs in WA are being used for stock or crop irrigation, and potentially for human drinking water purposes. And given the apparent residual and durable nature of uranium, particlarly in a concentrated slurry form, I would think this is quite dangerous. It is common knowledge that the soil prfile in WA is particularly sandy i.e. permeable, meaning the leachate/water/contaminants are quite mobile when water is introduced.

So, it’s all good to have a knowledgeable debate about the subject, but let’s make sure we keep an open mind and consider all the facts. Otherwise we just end up arguing for the sake of arguing……which I think a lot of the commenters on this website actually enjoy by the way! :-)

You sure about that? THere’s a reason why Australia was approached recently to be the global nuclear waste dump. The whole world has no where safe enough to put it! At the moment huge quantities of this stuff are stored at the power plants themeselves. THe problem is in finding a safe repository, one that has ALL the following qualities : geologically stable, politically stable, and isolated enough from the population. Australia it seems is the only one that has all three. I might be wrong, but there is not one safe nuclear repository KILOMETERS underground yet. It’s all theory/works in progress…

Richo said – “there IS a CONSIDERABLE problem with the disposal of the waste from coal powered power stations now isn’t there? Thats just goes straight up into the atmosphere now doesn’t it?”

Doesn’t have to be. Have you heard of geosequestration? Lots of work is being done in that regard.

ALso, new power plants that are built are a lot cleaner than the old 60s designs too.

Wheelnut, in regards to the deposits, seriously, for a deposit 20 km underground to leak out on the surface, it would take thousands of years of erosion! That’s just a ridicullous argument you have put forward mate!

Because According to a number of articles in various geological natural resource magazines etc; Australia has the biggest richest deposits of Uranium in the world and most of its in SA or WA.

In terms of power generation I think Australia should look at either Windfarms or “Hot Rock” Technology as it’s much safer and less harmful to the environment

Natural gas is another optiom given that we have “trucjkloads” of it off the West Australia however the gummint has sold virtually all of it to China

Come on Dan now thats just a stupid hypothetical, ofcourse its not something you would want dumped in your own backyard, what we are talking about is the responsible and safe dumping of the waste in areas that will have negligable environmental impact and is a long way away from the population and you know it mate, your just being frankly rediculous right there!

Mate they have been doing this for decades now and there has never ever been a problem with the disposal of the waste.. however there IS a CONSIDERABLE problem with the disposal of the waste from coal powered power stations now isn’t there? Thats just goes straight up into the atmosphere now doesn’t it? Geez that seems a lot worse then incasing it in cement and putting it KILOMETERS under ground and significant distances away from the population.

Seriously man… ofcourse its not perfect, but there is little doubt that it is the lesser of two evils, and by a HUGE margin…

Nope, not at all. My specialty is finance and tax, not coal mining. I’m giving you my objective view. Personally I don’t care. I can find employment anywhere else easy. I’ve had the above view before I started working for this place.

Simon – “Chernobyl was an old style reactor. In terms of immediate deaths it was a rather small disaster. 31 people died. Cave-ins in coal mines often kill hundreds.”

Chernobyl was in a third world country. People who die in coal mines usually happens in a third world countries. Most coal mines in aus are open cut, with no such danger. Given that such accidents happen mostly in third world countries are due to the lack of safety standards and procedures, it would be even more frightening if all of a sudden all third world coutnries went nuclear. No thanks!

Simon, I totally understand that the reactor technology has greatly improved. With that I don’t have as much problem as with toxic nuclear waste. Ask yourself this. If you think it is so safe, would you be happy to store some of it in your own backyard, amongst your family??

And I do realise radiation occurs everywhere. Difference is, natural occuring radiation and nuclear waste radiation, the difference in strength is couple of thousand times higher or whatever.

In the 1970s, manufacturing a solar cell required about as much energy as the cell could produce over its 20-year lifetime. Improvements in efficiency mean that today’s solar panels can “pay back” in only 1 to 3 years the energy needed to make them. Future designs will slash this figure again.
Coal will be Australia’s primary source of power for at least the next 100 years because the government gets big revenue from it and it creates employment.
We most certainly can take a page from Sweden’s book but political will means we won’t.