On energy sources
Jock Webb writes: Re. “Snoozing on renewables” (yesterday). Perhaps Adrian Jackson should join the Liberals, though to be fair they prefer coal. This displays exactly the blind over consumption and scientific ignorance that got us into this mess in the first place. If we really need to “use it all” the world will be a wasteland, so I trust Mr Jackson has no descendants.
In a similar vein, Roger Clifton is espousing a view which has no obvious basis, and which he concluded had no obvious basis in his comments on Tuesday’s forums. A touch hypocritical perhaps?
Beryce Nelson writes: It is interesting to read some of the nonsense being spruiked about Australia’s current energy sources. We should care where our energy comes from. Whilst the rest of developed and developing world moves swiftly to transfer from coal and gas to renewable sources Australia has to have yet another “conversation” about it. Most fascinating of all is the new push for the dirtiest and most dangerous of all — nuclear power — to replace coal. It is a non-starter. Apart from the very high risks associated with it, the huge cost of the infrastructure makes it un-viable, particularly when solar combined with battery technology as well as wind and ocean sources are coming online at a rapid rate around the world. Stop talking Australia and get moving.
Jock Webb speaks of “scientific evidence” then goes on to imply that we could “use it all”, disastrously of course. However, any geologist can tell you that we can never use up all our mineral resources. Do you want more coal? The world has more than enough coal to double the thickness of CO2 in the greenhouse, again and again. Do you want more gas ? With enough digging and probing, we have enough gas to leak methane into the sky and make it blaze infrared at midnight. Do you want more uranium? We have enough uranium to keep our hippies biting their bums for a million years.
Only one of these fuels does not emit greenhouse gases. And as much as The Greens hate to admit it, gas is worst of all. Compared to the ten tonnes of CO2 equivalent emitted into the greenhouse per person per year, nuclear only requires the burial of one gram of fission products, deep underground. And apart from all those hippies biting their bums, that is the sole consequence of going nuclear.
Dodger dumbs & doubles down again in his fevered defense of nukes with “one gram of fission product” per person per year, ie 7000 tonnes for the current world population, is far from the sole consequence of going nuclear. rectally ravened hippies aside.
Following from the South Australian “blackout”, I’m wondering whether there will be a births spike in the affected area 9 months after the date of the blackout.
We will have to wait and see.