Nuclear power will not be necessary. Japan has declared its intention to build a solar power station in space by 2030, where our Sun’s energy is five times stronger than on Earth, beaming the power to Earth via microwave or laser beam. This system could supply all Earth’s energy needs indefinitely, as well as allowing much future industrial activity to be based in space, where the Sun never sets. Solar power from space will allow fossil fuels to remain fossils and avoid the spectre of nuclear accidents, contamination, the cost of clean-ups and the expense and uncertainty of long-term storage. Rather than pumping billions of dollars into mining and delivering coal, would Australia be better advised to wake up to the advantage of solar power from space? We are a lazy space nation at present, yet space development holds the key to a better future for us all and will help ensure our survival beyond climate change, bring down the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and open the next chapter in the human adventure. Faced with the threat of losing all that we have worked for and gained should global heating shifting the Earth systems toward a hotter desert world, we may have nothing to lose and all to gain by getting serious about space now and following Japan’s lead with energy.

Kim Peart

If you take the view that the absolutely worst thing in the world for climate change and human health is the burning of coal, then nuclear power deserves a discussion. I’m not a fan of it by itself, but compared to coal it’s much better. Another point for discussion is the role of uranium - maybe not for Australia’s use (I think LNG is our ideal “transition” fuel for a number of reasons) but if the rest of the world is using nuclear power then we have a role to play with its safe mining, export and taking the waste back. Surely we have a moral obligation to store the waste if we sell it, combined with our stable political system and geology. Before anyone starts yelling at me, it’s all in the context of risk management - we’ve really got to stop burning coal immediately. I’d prefer to use nuclear power instead. Part of some of the really tough choices we face in the coming years.

2: Geoff Couser

Will there be enough fuel to supply all nations who wish to go nuclear? I have read that nuclear fuel supplies could run short. If this is the case, nations who can’t get enough will use coal. Japan’s lead with a solar power station in space could turn out to be the best Earth-medicine that the doctor could order, free of the heart-burn of storing nuclear waste.

Kim Peart

Hi Kim - I’m not aware of the Japan solar plan, but I’m a touch sceptical of the timeframe…but it sounds like a good idea, and the earth desperately needs good and innovative (and cost-effective) ideas. As for uranium supplies - I’d see nuclear as a transition only until renewables can provide enough electricity for all. There seems to be a bit of uranium around for such uses. I also view nuclear through the prism of stopping coal burning immediately - I see nuclear waste as much less of a problem than burning coal.

Geoff, how long will it take for enough nuclear capacity to come on line in Australia?  What will be the estimated rate of CO2 emissions by then?  How and where do we store the waste safely and guarantee this safety for its radioactive life?

This is just stupid!

For one, you should not even consider nuclear power until you have an answer for the waste, and “burying it” is not a realistic answer.

Another problem is it will take at least a decade to build a nuclear reactor, so it will make no difference to our current problem.

WHY can’t we, for a much lesser cost (much less than KRudd’s splurge so far), just put solar panels and wind generators on all our homes? What’s the problem?

It can be done within a couple of years, be cheaper, and negate any further base-load power station construction because all residences will not be drawing on them, leaving the old ‘dinosaurs’ to supply only industry while they convert/upgrade to new non-carbon emitting systems.

And what’s this space solar idea? Some gigantic heat ray which could burn the planet up even quicker? Or could it become uncontrollable to vaporise everything in it’s path?

Why do we have to come up with all these airy fairy gargantuan projects instead of just using what is currently available and proven?

#5 & #6 - all important points. Remember, I’m not happy I’m leaning towards the view that nuclear energy has a role, but faced with the serious problems created by and exacerbated by coal, I can’t help but wonder. Justa, I don’t think nuclear has a role in Australia - I’m mainly talking about accepting the reality that it’s already in place in many other places around the world who do have problems about the waste. Both Justa and Russell say that burying waste is a problem (as it undoubtedly is), but guys: what’s your alternative right now? And how does the waste “problem”  compare to the damage being caused by coal right now? It’s a risk management issue for me - with nuclear we’re probably less f***ed than with coal.

Russell makes a great point about local renewables instead of installing big infrastructure…I agree, great idea and cost comparisons appear good. But is it happening on a big scale (ie, India and China)? They seem pretty keen on coal, and nuclear as well - what do we do there? I think nukes are the lesser of two evils…and as I said before, if they use it, what to do with the waste?

Tough choices need to be made, and uncomfortable ones at that. To be honest, I’d be happier with a nuclear power plant in Tasmania rather than a pulp mill based on its environmental impacts. But don’t get me wrong, both suck.

Addition: having just watched NASA’s James Hansen on Lateline, through “oil” onto the list with coal…which strengthens the need for nuclear I believe - such a large amount of electricity that could only be produced by such a process could power electric vehicles and greatly reduce our reliance on oil. Can renewables supply such a large amount of electricity? Russell #7 doesn’t take this use into account when referring to renewables. I can’t see how they can at this stage when there’s such a pressing need to stop using fossil fuels at the rate we are.

Ive been his route before,  we know what can be achieved from the sun via panels on our respective roofs ! So just imagine if farmers who have walked of their thousand’s of hectare properties were to be reemployed on their holdings cleaning and caring for thousands of such panels or similar technology ! Australia is officially the hottest driest nation in the world ! and the sun is always shining somewhere in the country.

    This combined with “hot rock” technology wind and wave power could power the world, in fact the panel thing could do it on its own ! it would would put many out of work , however many of them could be reemployed in the manufacturing side and having those property owners move back into the rural areas which are slowly dying would rejuvenate those towns and help curb the cities urban sprawl and the housing shortage nation wide.
   
    Successive Govt’s say it is too expensive ! which is utter bullshit ! just look at the infrastructure that is needed to mine coal alone ! which is monumental !  but the share holders would lose a shitload !

    We could do it easily ! it just takes a govt with the balls to bite the bullet, cos the sun is free, will always be there, and there is no input needed by man to take the power which is endless and there for the taking.

    Now ! someone tell me I’m wrong !

                      d.d.

If in fact the world decide that nuclear power is the answer,  Why not just dump the nuclear waste on the moon ?  after all what harm could it do us there.
              d.d.

10: d.d.

The downside with storing nuclear waste on the Moon would be getting it there. The fear of an accident with a spaceship in the atmosphere would cause public whiplash. If such a fantasy could happen, the logical destination is the Sun.

Kim Peart

(11)
      Fantasy Kim ! isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black !

      O.K ! the sun then !  it would cost no more!  as i was thinking in terms of distance and cost ! which of course was not relevant as once hitting space the ship would take no power to continue.
       
      The facts are that it is all ! doable right now !  unlike pie in the sky futuristic
endeavor which at present is certainly fantasy.
                 
                    d.d.

Hmmm, not sure where to go from here….but thanks for the discussion….I think….

Re #7
Yes, there are nuclear power stations around the world already and some of the countries which have them are in the process of decommissioning them right now. Why?

As I have said somewhere in another post before regarding solar technology, John Howard shelved the most advanced solar technology available at the time (maybe only five years ago or less?). It’s still sitting there somewhere in our universities mothballed. A Chinese guy (can’t think of his name atm) was doing his degree here and was involved in a major way in this research. This guy, disappointed by the Australian Government’s inaction (or stupid action), went back to China after finishing his schooling and is now one of the wealthiest men in China founding an enormous company (with Chinese Government backing - can’t think of its name either, grrr) building and selling solar panels. The most annoying part is he’s not even using the ground-breaking technology he was part of in Australia because it’s protected by patent.

I think China is quietly way ahead of us regarding actually doing anything about reducing emissions with this technology.

Now, ANOTHER really annoying thing to know is that Origin Energy are sitting on an even more or equally advanced solar technology called “sliver technology.” You can find out all about it on their website. The amazing thing about “sliver technology” solar cells is that are so efficient that they will produce full voltage under extreme low light conditions. So much so that you could shade 85% of the solar panel and still be fully operational. ALSO, the cells are so thin they are flexible and can be sewn onto your clothes to charge your mobile, ipod, heated gloves or socks, etc.

MY vision, or hope, is to see this sort of thing supplied as standard roof sheeting. Roofing materials are expensive anyway, so why not have one which is actually doing more than keeping the rain off us?

Re #8
I did actually take this into account, sort of (briefly). When I mentioned the “old dinosaurs” (coal power stations) being left there to supply industry needs, this could also include heavy battery charging requirements. The answer to vehicle battery charging would be just as for fossil fuels now. You drive in to your service station and exchange batteries. The depleted ones are then collected or charged on-site just as fuel is delivered now. You could probably do some trickle charge while at home too, or use your car’s battery to ‘dump’ excess household energy into as hot water systems, etc. are used as a ‘dump’ now.

All these answers and technologies and systems are already available. It just needs Government to force industries to make the change.

Let’s face it, companies like Origin Energy and BP (both fossil fuel companies) have the renewables technology already. They are just holding back with the solar technologies (and probably wind and storage batteries) until they run out of the fossil fuel crap or it becomes too expensive to pump any longer.

Also, we could very well close down some or all coal fired power stations in Australia and just operate industry from the existing hydro-power stations which have the added bonus of being able to regulate output at any time with very little warning. You can’t do that with coal-fired stations. The existing hydro stations could be made so much more efficient as well.

Also, it is not a well known fact that Telstra (nee: Telecom, PMG) runs entirely on many systems of batteries (24VDC) located in all the main exchanges. It’s not a new idea. Ever wondered why your landline phone and mobile still works when the power goes off? So, the storage battery idea is already in operation as well, and has been for as long as we’ve had telephones.

Re #9
You are absolutely right d.d.

Actually, rural dwellers have been producing their own power with water wheels and the like for centuries. Including generating electricity. Just talk to a few ‘oldies’ who lived their younger years in the ‘sticks.’

Also, there would probably be MORE jobs made than lost if we started manufacturing solar panels and wind generators. It’s not just all the component aspects of manufacturing, there’s also the sales, installation, testing, maintenance, so on and on.

Name a job lost at a coal fired power station and I’ll bet it will have at least one renewable equivalent in its place.

It’s just dinosaur CEO industry scaremongering crap regarding jobs. Their (the mining and energy industry CEOs) jobs are the only ones they’re really trying to protect.

I’m not too keen on “hot rock” technology just yet. I don’t know enough about it. No-one is saying much and the Government is directing all enquiries to those companies who have a vested interest in them. I have made enquiries and the facts I have wormed from them so far are that:

1/ It uses our precious water to run (lots of it)
2/ This water (your motor vehicle’s engine and radiator system is a perfect example of this) WILL and DOES cool the “hot rocks” (ie: the engine) down, so what other unforeseen problems are we creating for the future, “global freezing?” Do we have to go into battle with another damaging and entrenched industry? Prevention is better than cure I say. And,
3/ Birdsville (the town), until recently, actually had been powered for quite a long time using this “hot rock” system. Why have they now decommissioned it?

I am all for using thermal energy where it occurs naturally as in New Zealand, etc. BUT I am against anything man-made that works against nature or where it doesn’t already happen naturally.

4: Geoff Couser & 6: Russell Langfield

Virgin Galactic’s spaceship will be in service in a couple of years and this will be a step away from a two hour flight between Los Angeles and Sydney above the clouds. This will also be a step toward a spaceplane that can take astronauts into space. The space race that we don’t hear about is the one that is happening right now, with leading space nations aiming to reach the Moon by 2020 for science and resources, including India, China, Russia and America. Accessing resources will lead to industry and in space and the best location is in orbit, where the Sun never sets and the energy is free. It doesn’t take an Einstein to see where this is all heading. Automated factories in space, using resources gathered in space and energy from the Sun will be producing products for Earth, that can be delivered smoothly in recyclable shuttle-craft on a one-way trip. One product that space industry can offer, especially if we would like to retire from nuclear power, coal fire and petrol guzzling, are solar power stations in space. The one planned by Japan for 2030 may not be the first, if American industry lifts off in this direction. The work has been done. the plans are on the shelf. Space futures are now open for business. The clock is ticking toward take-off. The delivery of power from space is not a weapon and the beam could be switched off automatically if it drifts for any reason. Receiving stations could be in isolated locations, such as the Australian outback or deserts. Will Australia, the lazy space nation, wake up from our bed of coal and join the future?

Kim Peart

Re #10, 11 & 12
Regarding nuclear waste and shooting it off into space, NOW you’re talking!

I have also been down this path and I just can’t get any answers from ANYONE, including “Dr Karl.”

I think the moon is probably NOT the best place to use as a ‘tip.’ It’s not just the junkyard we’d be creating, but who knows how these substances would react with those on the moon?

Also, could some rogue nation in the future go and get it to use against another country, etc.?

My best option is the same as Kim’s (#11, and then d.d’s in #12) and that is to send it to the biggest nuclear reactor in our solar system (the Sun) which would, I believe, just swallow it up and not have any impact at all.

I’ve often wondered why no-one would give me an answer to this proposal and Kim may also have confirmed my suspicion that scientists believe it is too risky and dangerous to send off in a space ship which might crash out of control before it even leaves our atmosphere.

Now, if that is the case then WHY are we making the shit to store here on earth in the first place???

This is the EXACT reason why I cannot agree with nuclear energy. Until you have a 100% safe and foolproof way to deal with the waste, forget it.

Renewables are the go and they are here now, safe, effective, efficient, tested and AVAILABLE.

Hi Russell - thanks for your posts. I agree with everything you’ve posted, and the sentiment behind it, but I’m honestly not convinced it’s able to be implemented in the time frames available to us. You’re right, there’s been so much wasted opportunity.

But what do you do about the waste that’s happening here and now? Even though we may not like it, it is being produced, will continue to be produced in increasing amounts and it’s got to go somewhere. Ideas?

Regarding nuclear waste and shooting it off into space, NOW you’re talking!

Several years ago I tried to intrest the powers that be in building a space cannon to fire our nuclear waste at the sun. The reponse was a deafening silence.

We can already propel trains to almost supersonic speeds by magnetic forces. They could go faster, except for the sound barrier problems. The same technology could be used to accelerate metal-clad canisters of nuclear waste through a two or three kilometre tunnel and achieve sufficient speed for them escape to the gravity of earth. The propulsion could be further augmented by other means, including small solid fuel rockets etc.

This is the simplistic outline of a more complex cannon, but it could work. At to those that doubt, I would say “Yes, we can!”

20: Gerry Mander

Development of a magnetic sled system, or cannon, is quite advanced. See the Youtube on space sunshade where this system is deployed to deliver the parts of the space sunshade to La Grange 1. Professor Gerard K. O’Neill proposed using this system to send raw materials from the Moon for orbital space construction in 1976 (‘The High Frontier’). This system could be used to deliver building materials and water into space from Earth to kick-start space industry and orbital habitat construction, until sufficient resources are accessed on the Moon, asteroids and other planets in the Solar System. The magnetic sled system could be powered by a solar power station in space, where the Sun is five times stronger and never sets and with the energy beamed to Earth, so that the magnetic sled would not need to rely on terrestrial power sources. I am not in favour of using this system to send nuclear waste into space. We have created this problem on Earth and we should take care of it on Earth. I am in favour of green power solutions being used to the max, but if we wish to lift ourselves from the two dimensional world of life in the atmosphere to the three dimensions of space in the Solar System, then we will need to run with the space options, which may also hold the keys to overcoming political and industrial angst that could lead to inadequate action in dealing with the realities of climate change in the short and long term. I now read that we may solve the short term, but unless we bring CO2 back to at least 380 parts per million, the long-term risk will remain. In the light of current polar melting, the target may need to be 350 ppm.

Kim Peart

Re #17 & 19
What’s wrong with opting for the most advanced solar and wind power, available NOW?

Let’s worry about these other way-off-into-the-future things later, when our planet can afford to.

22: Russell Langfield

Should climate change bite deeply into the fabric of our global civilization, causing tipping points to tumble toward climate chaos, creating millions of environmental refugees that ignite conflicts that could all too easily slide toward nuclear madness, the space option may be permanently lost as a future option and any survivors find themselves imprisoned in the two dimensional world of a dangerous atmosphere looking toward a one dimension terminal end-game for our species. It is fingers crossed and a wild gamble to hope that we can work it out on Earth alone. We may. We may not. We may survive but enter a new Stone Age. Why gamble with all that we have gained? We now have the technology to lift human activity into the three dimensions of space in the Solar System. With nothing to lose and all to gain, we could quite quickly become a space-faring civilization and from this position of confidence, fight for a healthier Earth. As we make the giant leap beyond the Earthly nest, we can also fight for the Earth, to bring down greenhouse levels in the atmosphere by whatever means is most efficient and in this, the Sun holds the key, whether on Earth or in space. With unlimited energy and Solar resources, we could make poverty history and look to be a mature society with a mature economy. It is our collective choice. To gamble that we can solve all problems within the pressure-cooker of Earth’s atmosphere could become a game of Russian roulette and we could all lose. The first commercial spaceplane will be in service in a couple of years (Virgin Galactic). The International Space Station is occupied and receiving tourists (Russia). Leading space nations are now gunning for the Moon by 2020 with a view to accessing lunar resources. The future is upon us, offering the way to deal with climate change, as well as keeping the wheels of our civilization moving.

Kim Peart

We already have a perfect source of nuclear energy.

It’s safe and free, and it’s delivered daily, in abundance, to every country.

Re #21 & 23
Water is a finite part of our world, Kim. There is no way I will support it being sent to other worlds and lessen what is available here. What about germs and bacteria and whatever versions of it there are in space? We’ll have no idea or defence of it.

Personally, I think we better just concentrate on doing something to save our own planet first before worrying about the moon or wherever else. And also, I’m not a supporter of an ever-increasing human population.

As “Mr Smith” said in the Matrix “the only other organism I can think of to compare humans with is a virus…you humans move into an area, consume everything, then move on.” I agree with him. Most other organisms on our planet actually contribute to its betterment in that they leave something behind which gives renewed life and keeps the cycle going.

25: Russell Langfield

Unfortunately, the horse has already bolted. The Apollo explorers took water to the Moon and water is regularly sent to the International Space Station. In the larger view, all Earth’s water came from space, as Earth was once no more than scattered dust around a young Sun. The water that we have is probably the result of comets crashing into Earth and if there is anything in space to be terrified of, asteroids are zooming into Earth as falling stars all the time with any of that. So we are hardly separate from the rest of the Solar System in the larger view. Can we trade? I could have a chat with NASA, Russia, Japan, China, India and Europe, all of whom are gunning for a robust presence in space, that the volume of water taken from Earth will be returned to Earth, once supplies of water are secured in space. However, should climate change tumble the Earth toward a runaway greenhouse effect, then the Earth may become more like Venus, which once had as much water as Earth, the oceans evaporate and the water vapour blow off into space. This is the fate of Earth in the end, as the Sun gets hotter with age and life will no longer be possible on barbecue Earth.

Kim Peart

(25)  ” As “Mr Smith” said in the Matrix “the only other organism I can think of to compare humans with is a virus…you humans move into an area, consume everything, then move on.” I agree with him. Most other organisms on our planet actually contribute to its betterment in that they leave something behind which gives renewed life and keeps the cycle going.”

    Exactly my sentiments Russell, what needs to be done can be done right now ! with what i outlined in post (9) and the mention of ridding ourselves of atomic waste (10) was purely in the event that, should we go nuclear?
    We have everything necessary right here ! and now ! to tackle the problem , we also know that the systems work without ANY DOUBT ! and that emissions would be cut drastically in the shortest time ! so where is the downside ?

    And the best part is that Australia be recognized as"once again"leaders in technology, once again proving that we,  as in the past Pro Rata !  “Punch much harder for a given weight” !
                   
                        d.d.

Re #26
Yes, Kim, I should have made myself a little clearer regarding the water. Enough to survive like astronauts, who even then recycle it later, is ok but NOT in quantities to accommodate industry or agriculture. We have enough problems with the natural resource industries on earth (mining, forestry, energy) as it is without letting them expand ‘off-shore.’ And guess who caused the global warming we’re facing right here now?

Anyway, I’d rather not discuss the interplanetary stuff. It doesn’t really interest me, sorry.

Nuclear power my ass!

Reducing consumption of everything, improving efficiencies in energy usage and conservation, passive and active solar power and all other forms of genuinely renewable local power generation is the answer.  For an investment of less than 4K per household per year every single household in Australia can be converted to be energy self sufficient, including commuter transportation. All required technologies exist today. 

This is peanuts compared to any other means currently considered, including Nuclear power. Keep in mind that Rudd is running up a debt of around 40K to 50K per household with his stimulus packages, yet not a single cent has been spent on alternate energy generation.

Investment in self power generation is not considered for many reasons.

Retail electricity customers are heavily subsiding industrial users and this model would end that. Hence “base load” is only a construct of heavy industry, a well designed power efficient home or office with the right appliances does not require base load. Yes, we would pay more for consumer goods directly as a result, but we already do so by subsidising industry’s consumption of power. The difference would be that this way the consumer would choose who they prepare to subsidies, and they would do so based on cost not arbitrary as is today.  Yes, this would push the cost of power for industry through the roof, as it should be, it would be the real cost of the power they are sheltered from today. The market would deliver by rewarding corporations that can make the most efficient use of power. This is not the case today and the ETS would tax only retail users not industry, in fact shielding the biggest polluters altogether.

The current behemoth driven economic models used by governments and corporations do not fit a model where the end user generates their own power because there is no way to make money by large corporates and the taxes that flow from that. Self generation would make power essentially a worthless commodity at the corporate and government level and that cannot be allowed to happen by the current power holders, at any cost.

This also highlights the weakness of expecting these same people to find a suitable solution. They will only find one that suits their interests which is by definition must involve ever increasing consumption and profit. This is why the market should not be left unchecked or to be expected to find a way out of this, and this is the same reason why the bloody ETS will save no one. No political party wants to see the end to taxes collected on energy.

Also, consider that the biggest value of current power companies is not in the generation but in the grid and distribution, the buying and selling and delivering large volumes of energy. Self sufficient end users do not require a large grid or wide area distribution or a large market with large profits. While not having large distribution networks is actually a saving both in investment and energy use, it would obliterate the balance sheet of all power companies. That is not allowed by those looking at large scale solutions.

Finding a real solution is not in the interest of governments or large corporations, that is why they cannot seem to find one. Like the holy grail of the coal industry, pure time wasting money grabbing bullshit. Just as Rudd’s ETS tax grab and Nuclear power, they are only designed to reinforce the current lunacy of large scale power generation. We pay $96Mil every single year for Basslink for 20 years, imagine what could have been done with that money in terms of renewable energy generation.

I believe that a revolution will come to the power sector shortly and that is one of the biggest reasons for the haste of the ETS.  The revolution will be not dissimilar to that of the Internet. Efficiency savings will allow power generation to be de-centralised and new business models will be developed to deal with commercialisation of this new model. The Googles of that sector will emerge creating new business models to deliver huge profits to their shareholders and power will become a cheap as chips commodity for retail end users just as the internet delivered free content, resources, computing and access to information for the masses.

If I am wrong about this it’s only because the current vested interest in the power and tax industries will have won their battle and over powered common sense. So I will repeat, Nuclear power my ass, it is designed to lock us into a solution that will deliver only to industry and governments, not the rest of us and definitely not the planet.

28: General

Ocean water could be sent into space and desalinated where the Sun never sets and the Sun’s energy is stronger by a factor of ten (five times stronger than on Earth and available 24 hours a day). In space ocean water could be distilled to the last drop and the dissolved salts and minerals utilised. On Earth the extra power that could be provided from a solar power station in space can be used to desalinate water that can then be pumped to any location. The deserts would bloom and if this boon can be brought into play it will help avoid one of the predictable nightmares of climate change, when the ice in the Himalayas melts away and causes droughts and famines in India, China and South East Asia. Rather than facing millions of environmental refugees trying to get to Australia, solar power stations in space could help avoid an unbelievable tragedy. The use of solar power on Earth will help speed up the solutions to these problems, but the extra muscle of power from space could prove critical, which will also be helping to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by displacing the need for fossil fuels. Nuclear power options could be retired also.

Kim Peart

I do not support nuclear power as an option for Australia, for a number of reasons.
But firstly, I have to say that I think new generation nuclear plants, and the control systems that are available now, are much safer than those at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which would inevitably be pointed to. I also think that the developments made in Germany and Scandinavia in waste storage and management make this less of a prominent issue than it once was.
However, here are the reasons I oppose nuclear power in Australia:
Where, even in vast Australia, would you build a plant? Getting a basic approval would be a nightmare. We can’t even build a pulp mill! (not even one that has projected emissions that are so low that no currently available monitoring devices could register a measurement!) A minor point really, but here are points of greater significance: It would be the quickest way to send vast amounts of money offshore! Australia would not re-invent the wheel, it would buy off-the-shelf nuclear technology, probably from the USA, (the worst choice! Japan would be better!) Shares in Wetinghouse, General Electric and/or Gulf Atomic would skyrocket! (among others)
There would be a long lead-time, and other cheaper, quicker technologies would be delivering climate benefits!
A nuclear power plant has to generate power non-stop, day and night, for seven years to replace the energy embodied in its construction, and most of that would be from fossil fuel sources!
Australia would be much better off selling its uranium to the rest of the world, where natural endowments of energy options do not exist as they do in Australia. This bonus of foreign exchange would greatly help our economy, especially as we would be able to use some of it to install the cheaper, off-the-shelf options that mostly already exist, and still have some left over!
Can anyone show me where I am wrong on any of this?

Kim ! whatever it is you are suggesting is at present out of our immediate capability and some of what you propose will i am sure, come to fruition eventually, but right now we know what we can do ! and should be ! so let us concentrate on that which is at present doable.
                d.d.

32: d.d.

To “concentrate on that which is at present doable” is gambling that it will work. Because it is gambling on a single solution to a complex network of problems, it is a high-risk strategy that cannot hope to inspire support or confidence in the future. Any plan for climate change needs to include the next 100 years, in preparation for the next thousand years. That which we decide to work for today becomes part of the confidence with which we work. In terms of the next 100 years, the space options fall within the early part. The confidence generated by a decision to head in this direction would begin at the point of that decision and benefits, including economic, would flow early. If there is an awakening that the space option is a profoundly intelligent one, a giant leap in this direction would speed up the process and accelerate the development of higher levels of technology. The space option is also a two part plan. As we make a giant leap for space, at the same time we can fight for the Earth and because we have confidence in the future that we are building, including the elimination of poverty and starvation, we can expect to attract more universal support for efforts to make the Earth a much healthier place. The space option opens the way to solve all problems, lifting solution delivery from the two dimension of the Earth’s breathable atmosphere to the three dimensions of space in the Solar System. With current levels of support, the Virgin Galactic space plane starts service in a couple of years, activities begin on the Moon in 2020 and solar power stations in space are expected by 2030. Put the foot on the accelerator, as if in a war and we are in a war with the Earth and the delivery years will shrink. In the age of democracy, this is our collective choice, or unless, as Lovelock warns, a warlord enters the scene who drives solutions with an iron whip without mercy or choice, when the future begins to look extremely bleak and the environmental refugees start arriving in Australia in their hundreds of thousands. What warlord could resist the prospect of ruling the Earth, the Moon and Mars, as well as grabbing the wealth of the asteroids, many of which are in Earth’s orbit.

Kim Peart

NEWS BREAK

As suggested above, the United States is now gunning to beat the Japanese to be first with a solar power station in space, by 14 years, by having a system in service by 2016. This system has the power to make nuclear power history and give us the jump climate change and fossil fuel emissions. Report in New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18247
-california-gives-green-light-to-space-solar-power.html

Kim Peart

Lots of good ideas, some will happen, some won’t…but no-one has made a suggestion as to what to do with the waste now. Whatever your views on renewables and future space options (which must be regarded as speculative - but I wish it well, Kim) it looks like nuclear energy will be a part of the world’s energy solution. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/23/AR2009112303966.html?sid=ST2009112401739 

The question again: should Australia play a role in safely supplying the world with the stuff and taking the waste back? Russell, you’ve made some good points that I appreciate but what’s your answer to this? Woodworker, you mention selling the uranium - but what about the next step and taking it back? (Hawkie likes the idea)

Disclaimer: I don’t feel strongly either way regarding nuclear and would rather it didn’t have to be used, but I think coal and oil use must be stopped almost immediately - hence my interest in anything else. No pecuniary interests either!

There is absolutely no need for nuclear power and the words smart thinkers know it ! it’s all about multinationals, and the need to cater to the rich shareholders in present practice.

    Should however , the world decide to go nuclear, and find that sending waste to the sun to be not doable !  perhaps the safest alternative would be to bury it at the poles.

                    d.d.

35: Geoff Couser

Concerning “speculative”: Is the quantum computer speculative, or a known technology in the process of being realised? Is fusion power speculative, or a known technology in the process of being realised? Is the Virgin Galactic space plane speculative, or a technology in the process of being refined? The World at the beginning of World War II was quite different to the one before it, delivering computers, jet aircraft, space ships (the V2 rocket was the first to go above the atmosphere and was the direct predecessor of the Saturn V rocket, developed by the same team), nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Space technology is known technology and how swiftly space development proceeds depends only on the speed of interest. The nuclear option to save the planet may become a mere speculative skeleton if current reports of shortages in fuel supplies cripple the option. The only other large-scale solution would be solar power stations in space that would supply energy for Earth, industry in space and activity on the Moon where the Sun sets for two weeks at a time. When a technological capability is known and predictable, is it speculative, or technologies and capabilities in the process of being realised. Humans travelling to a nearby star within a ten year time-frame is totally speculative, as we do not at present have the propulsion system that would allow this to happen. It would be helpful to expand our thinking beyond the very flat atmosphere world of the Earth’s surface, if we want to make sure that we get the jump on climate change and place ourselves in a confident survival position to fight for a healthy Earth and future for humanity.

Kim Peart

36: d.d.

No matter where nuclear waste is placed on Earth, the crust could crack and a volcano spew forth through the midst of it. Even placing the stuff where one tectonic plate slides under another, so that it is sent into the Earth, could prove too risky. It is well known that a natural nuclear furnace once spluttered away on Earth. The safer we make nuclear waste for the future the better and in future centuries, stored nuclear waste may be made safer with new technologies. It could prove to be an expensive long-term problem.

Kim Peart

NEWS on the ABC of the American proposal for the first solar power station in space, where the Sun never sets and is five times stronger than on Earth. This system could supply all Earth’s energy needs indefinitely and open the way for manufacturing in space, with resources gathered on the Moon and from the asteroids, many of which are in Earth’s orbit. It will make the need for nuclear power literally history. Should Australia, the lazy space nation, wake up from our bed of coals and use our resources to invest in this system of power generation and make sure that we are on the frontier of space industry?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/11/2769652.htm

Kim Peart

#39. A few small problems with your statements.

The Asteroid belt is between Mars and Jupiter and is nowhere near earth’s orbit. If it were, we would have been annihilated long ago by impacts.
The sun is five times stronger than on Earth. Well, if we were to erect five times as many solar power units on earth, then that would be no advantage. We still have to egt the ebergy here even if we generate it in space. How do you propose that. Beam the heat down and you both increase the temperature down here and also will probably set fire to or fry the Earth in the process.

To send a rocket into orbit, let alone deep space uses a bucket load of money and fuel. The fuel polutes the atmosphere and the ionosphere. These resources you speak about gathered from the moon and the asteroids and Mars ... what exactly are they? Certainly not coal, oil and wood or even water and oxygen, and are you proposing mining for the stuff?

Manufacturing in space would require not only getting the raw materials, the people and machinery out there, but you would then have to find a distributuion system as well. Nipping off into space to do your shopping isn’t exactly an option. The goods would also be a bit costly as well, even if the energy was free.

I think that our options are definitely Earthbound for the next millenium or so.

Science fiction is not reality, you know!

Kim ! as of this time you have put forward many pie in the sky scenario’s, which at present are beyond our capabilities, whilst calling suggestions by others as fanciful, suggestion’s, may i add that are within our capability RIGHT NOW, and when you start with “WARLORDS” this is purely the stuff of fantasy as of this time ! and i suggest a little more reality and a little less “Harry Potter” ! maybe in order for rational debate.
                      d.d.

40: Gerry Mander

Asteroids: There are asteroids in Earth’s orbit. They don’t all orbit the Sun at the same speed as the Earth, so that one can catch up with the Earth, go into orbit with the Earth for a time and then break away to continue ahead of the Earth, as happened recently. There are other asteroids that roam around the Solar System. A prime location for asteroids is in the Asteroid Belt, but this is not all there is. The orbital La Grange points of Jupiter, which are 60 degrees before and after Jupiter in the planet’s orbit, are said to be as numerous as the Asteroid Belt.

Asteroid Impacts: Asteroids hit the Earth very frequently. The last big one was 65 million years ago that sent the dinosaurs into the fossil record. There have been innumerable impacts of various sizes since, including rocks from space coming through the roof and landing on someone’s couch.

Solar Power Stations in Space: To understand solar power stations in space and how the energy is delivered to Earth, follow the trail of questions and read up on. There is a stacks of information on the Internet and at least one Youtube film. The radio or laser beam that would deliver the energy to Earth is not a weapon. The waves must be received to be converted into usable energy. The receiving station can be in an isolated location to allay any fears and the beam could be switched off automatically should it drift. This is old technology that has been in use on Earth.

Earth-based Solar Energy: To match a solar power station in space, at least ten times the area would be needed on Earth, because in space the energy would be received 24 hours a day. I am in support of maximising the use of solar energy collection on Earth. In the real world of physics and politics, solar power station in space may be the only alternative to seeing nuclear power stations increase in number on Earth.

Space Resources: The Earth is only one small part of the Solar System. There are resources on the Moon, asteroids and planets. Leading space nations are now gunning to be on the Moon by 2020 with a view to accessing the resources of the Moon. The ball is now rolling in this direction. With energy from the Sun, automated factories could be established in space (factories on Earth are becoming more and more automated now). Products manufactured in space could be sent to Earth in shuttles that glide to the Earth’s surface on a one-way trip, made of material that could be recycled for use on Earth.

Accessing Space: A space plane will be the best way to send people into space and Virgin Galactic’s space plane will be carbon neutral. The best way to send raw materials into space to get space development started, until sufficient resources can be accessed in space, could be with a magnetic sled system that could be powered on Earth by a solar power station in space. Rockets will be needed in the short term, until alternative systems are in place.

The Speed of Technology: Consider how much the World has changed in the past 100 years. In the light of the detail that technological advance is increasing year by year, where will we be in 100 years time is very hard to imagine. I believe that it would be a fair estimate to suggest that an automated space factory could be in operation in 15 to 30 years. By then Earth would not be the only market.

Survival: Having examined many books, article and followed the news stories on climate change and considering the political dynamics that drive our world, I have come to see that we now face a danger of the Earth systems tumbling toward a desert phase, which James Lovelock warns could be a permanently hotter Earth that is inhospitable for human civilization (in part because the Sun is now 25 percent hotter than at the dawn of life 3.5 billion years ago). If we go into collapse we could lose the space option and could be faced with minimal chances of survival. I am not prepared to gamble with our survival, when I can see a way to ensure our survival, prosperity and future creative opportunities by securing a permanent presence in space as soon as possible, which will also put us in a confident survival position to fight for a healthier Earthly environment, which could include retiring fossil fuels by using solar power on Earth and in space and building an adjustable sunshade at La Grange 1 between Earth and the Sun to cool the Earth.

The science fiction horror story could be our failure to figure out how to survive, when the solution to the problem lies before us, if we care to look.

Kim Peart

41: d.d.

Do we forget Hitler that quickly? He and the Nazis took Germany from a crippled state to a super power in a few short years, driving technological development in the process. Should climate change look like going nasty and people are driven by fear, a war lord could emerge who wields an iron whip could gain support. If a dictator sees how securing a presence in space will give them the power to deliver benefits to their people on Earth, including surviving climate change and even getting the jump on it, a single-mined and ruthless approach to the problem could deliver a solution quite quickly, including a presence on the Moon and the first expedition to Mars. Do we forget John Howard so quickly, how ruthlessly he wielded power to retain power? If good people will not act effectively for the betterment of humanity, then the door will be open for a tyrant who will act effectively in a time of need.

Kim Peart

Just for the record , the theory as i am informed is the trouble with space stations is that because of the lack of gravity and air ! that to blast off from one with a spaceship ! creates a situation whereupon it sends the station off in the opposite direction at the same rate of speed and at present that leaving the stations is virtually a matter of waiting for the window of opportunity and falling away, as the stations are orbiting at some thousands of kms per hour.

  This being so, one wonders how they do actually achieve separation and or “kick off” without putting the station out of orbit.

                    d.d.

                  d.d.

44: d.d.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For this to happen between a space ship and a space station, the space ship would need to be in physical contact with the space station at the moment of acceleration. If there is no contact, then there is no action-reaction. A space ship can pull away from a space station with a few tiny puffs and drift away, with no effect on the space station and when suitably positioned, so that any blast will not affect the space station, can accelerate away without any impact on the space station at all.

Kim Peart

Basic momentum physics shows that m1v1 = m2v2 so if the masses of the two bodies are unequal then the lighter one will have the greatest velocity.

So the space station will indeed move in the opposite direction to the space ship, but at a velocity inversely proportional to its mass.

I still believe this to be science fiction, but seeing it is the holiday season, here is a bit of my own.

Space Oddity

But it wasn’t always like this. Only recently I had an adventure. I was on my way back from Mars….. or was it Venus?  Anyway, wherever it was I bumped into that Startrek thing….. Voyager, boldly going where no man has ever gone before, and somehow getting away with it. However, I was invited on board to meet the Captain and Dr Spock. Imaging my surprise when I entered the control deck, and there sitting in the Captains’ chair was not the handsome astronaut we normally saw on telly, but a large pink pig. And Spock was the same. Apart from his uniform, the only recognizable thing about him were his ears. All else was pink and porcine.
They saw my consternation and hurried to explain: “You are obviously surprised at our appearance,  but probably not as much as we were.”
“What on Earth, or wherever else it was, has happened to you?”
“A rather unfortunate little accident,” grunted the Captain.
“Please tell me,” I said, trying not to appear too inquisitive. After all, I recognized that they could be a little sensitive about it.
“Well, it was in one of those far off galaxies, and we were running out of food, so espying a likely looking planet, Spocky and I decided to go on a hunting trip. Unbeknown to us, it just happened to be New Years Eve. After about an hour chasing a couple of birds around in the bushes…. but that’s another story. You know how these hunting trips go.  Anyway, we also managed to capture a couple of local pigs, and we made our way back to the rendezvous point. I rang the Starship on the stellaphone, and said, ‘Beam us up Scotty, etc.’  What we hadn’t reckoned with was that old Scotty was already celebrating Hogmanay and was now totally pissed out of his mind. He was absolutely motherless, which may have been the reason he was drinking in the first place. Anyhow, he must have got his fingers and his eyes and his brain completely crossed, ‘cos he pressed all the wrong bloody buttons, and we ended up in these f#@*%*ng pig skins and the pigs ended up in our bodies.”
“Surely you can do something about it?”
“Not any more. It’s irreversible.”
“The bodies of Spock and the Captain are no longer with us.”
“How come,” I asked.
“Well, because of their long and devoted service to the Empire and the Voyager, we decided to return the compliment.”
“I don’t understand. What do you mean?”
Here, if you can imagine it, the two pigs actually looked sheepish, then Ex-Spock smiled. “We decided to serve them ourselves.”
“How? I asked.
“With baked potatoes.”

44/45

    That’s exactly what i would have thought !~ however this physics guy tells me that is not the case in an airless environment such as space.

    Don,t ask me ! i just the painter ! i know nothing !

    Good one Gerry, hope they had apple sauce.

    While i,m at it ! and as my computer has been on the fritz , and may cark it at any moment ! A VERY MERRY XMAS TO ALL ! AND DRIVE CAREFULLY over the festive season
                Ciao
                    d.d.

48: d.d.

Two objects of equal size will be attracted to each other in proportion to their mass and a space ship will be attracted to a space station, but the force involved is small and easily countered, or their would be hell to pay every time the Space Shuttle sought to depart from the International Space Station. Beyond the atmosphere there is no air to consider, but air is only a concern when moved through at speed, as when the Space Shuttle returns to Earth. No air, no friction. The main concern with a space ship departing from a space station would be any blast from the space ship hitting the space station, whether with arrival or departure.

Kim Peart

Like the guy said , because there is no air ! no friction etc ! size is irrelevant unless of course it’s a kosher planet .

    Also ! when one thinks about it we have all seen astronauts depicted moving from place to place in space by the ejection of compressed air or something similar , now,  how can that work in an airless environment ?  because the exhausted air would need something to actually hit in order to have an opposite effect.

    Like i said ! i’m just the——————————————————-
                  d.d.

50: d.d.

To move in space, the basic principle of - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - applies. The exhaust shooting away, as with a jet, drives the spaceship or astronaut in the opposite direction.

Kim Peart

#37 - Kim, you’re suggesting that I’m using “speculative” as if it’s a bad thing. I’m not - but it sounds like a bit of a gamble to rely on it when we need to move forward now given the awful effects of coal and oil and the lead times involved with technology.

(OK, I’ll buy into the discussion about space - wasn’t there a Bond film where the North Koreans controlled a satellite which harnessed the sun? There may be ill effects of that technology as well).

You mention nuclear fusion - yes, I definitely regard it as speculative given that I’ve been waiting for it for a long time and nothing has come out of it. And experimental lab work doesn’t count I’m afraid.

Actually, much of the work on renewables is speculative because there’s no clear indication which one may work…for example geothermal, whilst promising, is yet to deliver. I hope it does, but it’s a touch speculative, don’t you think? Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be pumping billions into research, like the solar space option. But it’s speculative.

Meanwhile, anyone got any ideas what to do with the nuclear waste today? (This topic has been avoided somewhat)

(46)
    Peter ! in an airless environment, my guru tells me that the weight of each object is immaterial , i am not too sure that he isn’t right !

    What he maintains is that if one were beside a spaceship (just floating and not circling the earth at thousands of miles per hour which is what is currently the situation with our astronauts) that if one pushed away from the spaceship it would result in both objects leaving one an other at precisely the same speed because the relative weights of the objects have no relevance in an airless environment, because friction does not exist ! 

  Also that if one were to be able to fire two missiles simultaneously ( in space ) that although one is twice the weight they will both travel at exactly the same speed and continue doing so.

    I think some more googling may be in order before i can close the book on this one.

                    d.d.

(52) 
  “meanwhile, anyone got any ideas what to do with the nuclear waste today? (This topic has been avoided somewhat)”

    As mentioned earlier the ONLY safe option would be to find means of firing it off into the sun as discussed in 10, 11, @ 12 !

                        d.d.

52: Geoff Couser

I must strongly disagree with your view that fission is speculative. This is how the Sun releases energy and therefore all solar power is connected with fusion. Generating power directly by fusion has been demonstrated, is being developed and in time it is expected to be an option. It is not an option today, but in the future it could prove the system of choice for deep space, where stars are too distant to be an energy source.

Kim Peart

Peter ! in an airless environment, my guru tells me that the weight of each object is immaterial , i am not too sure that he isn’t right !

Sorry Don, it is nothing to do with an airless situation. It is to do with lack of gravity. Where there is zero (effective) gravity, everything weighs nothing.

55: Apology

I meant to write in first line: “view that fusion is speculative.”

Kim Peart

56: Gerry Mander & 53 d.d.

A spaceship or space station in orbit or free-fall going around the Earth, is weightlessness by virtue of falling in a long extended manner balanced between the gravity of the Earth and the velocity of the object in orbit. If a spaceship goes too fast, it will fly away from Earth and if it goes too slow, it will fall back to Earth. Galileo demonstrated that iron balls of different sizes and different weights fall to Earth at the same speed. In a vacuum there is no air to hinder the fall of an object. the Apollo astronauts demonstrated this on the Moon, by dropping a feather and a heavy weight to show how both fell at the same rate. So an elephant or a human will not loose their weight in free-fall. The difference is it will take more energy to slow down an elephant in free-fall than it would a human. Both can fall to Earth at the same rate, but because of the difference in mass, the elephant would make a much bigger splat upon landing than a human. It would therefore take more energy to slow the elephant down for a soft landing on Earth than it would for a human. In summary, in free-fall, whether in Earth-orbit or jumping from a plane, all objects fall at the same speed, though when falling through air, friction can slow an object, cause it to change direction, or result in a fireball. The size of a parachute to slow down an elephant would have to be so much larger than that needed for a human. Also, in free-fall in a vacuum the behaviour of an object is still determined by its mass (or weight). Two female astronauts fighting over a male astronaut (not unheard of on Earth), could push away from each other with roughly equal force. If an astronaut pushes against an elephant, the elephant would be less effected because of its greater mass. Similar with the Moon, which is in a vacuum, but a spaceship pushing off from it has no observable effect because of it much greater mass. 

Kim Peart

58. The assumption was that weighlessness is associated with the lack of air. It is not!

The apparent (Note that word} weightlessness is actually because the centrifugal force equals the centripetal force and thereby negates gravity. If the body were to either slow down or speed up, then gravity again becomes a factor, as can be seen in an aircraft where you don’t float around the cabin. The relative mass is only of significance after this balance has been destroyed, and the greater the mass the more kinetic energy it generates in falling, hence an elephant always makes more of an impression than a human when it falls from the sky…..?

Don,

Momentum is the product of mass (in kilograms) and velocity (in metres per second) and in space or anywhere else, mass is the amount of matter in a body.

With two bodies interacting, as in a collision or separation, the momentum of one body equals the momentum of the other, or as mentioned earlier ..

M1 x V1 = m2 x v2

Given three of the above, you can calculate the fourth using basic algebra.

(56)
      no need for apologies Gerry, i’m just a dumb bastard however and i will accept what you say is factual ! does that not however add weight to his hypotheses.

                        d.d.

Just another point:—

‘A spaceship or space station in orbit or free-fall going around the Earth…..’

Being ‘in orbit’ and ‘freefall’ are totally different things. Spaceships are never in freefall unless they are crashing back to Earth; they are in orbit. Freefall is the illusion of zero gravity that happens when a body is inside another body that is diving or falling at the same velocity as the gravitational velocity. Relative to the larger body, the smaller body inside APPEARS to be weightless. It can be simulated in a diving aircraft, but only for a few seconds. Longer, and the entire lot would emulate the elephant you spoke about!

The satellite orbit is determined by the distance from Earth. The further out it is, the less the gravitational pull and hence the slower the orbital speed required. This is how navigational and military satellites appear to be motionless in relation to the Earth. But again, that is an illusion, for they are travelling at a speed that matches exactly the rotational speed of the Earth. All things are relative, and as they say, you can’t choose them.

(60)
    Give us a break Peter ! what in the name of Sam Hill is algebra ?  besides i am just quoting the words of a so called expert and haven’t the foggiest notion ! except to say from a layman’s perspective there is a lot to commend what he say’s and no one (as yet) has said he is wrong.

                    d.d.

“hence an elephant always makes more of an impression than a human when it falls from the sky…..?

    Yeah !  i get that Gerry ! however both leaving together will land at the same time and of course ! the elephant makes a bigger impression ! as it will cover more ground, but then we are now talking in an earthly environment are we not.

                  d.d.

And again:-

‘Earth-based Solar Energy: To match a solar power station in space, at least ten times the area would be needed on Earth, because in space the energy would be received 24 hours a day.’

Untrue. For a solar powerstation to transmit energy to the Earth it would have to have a stationary orbit over the receiving station. That means it is rotating at the same speed as the Earth, and as such, for ten or more hours a day it would be in the Earth’s shadow. The energy would also have to pass through the Earth’s atmosphere on its way down, which would dissipate the power somewhat, heat the atmosphere and be a total invisible hazard to any aircraft. And as for microwaves or lasers, how much power would be needed to operate these devices?

Given all the unknowns and hazards, I think atomic energy is a far safer bet!

Gerry ! according to Newtons law, there is no such thing as Zero gravity in the known universe,   
    You see ! what is happening is that you guys are starting to make me “Google stuff” and i really don’t have the time, however maybe someone can explain this : my neighbor (over the road) had a pacemaker installed and every time he mows his lawn and a foxy lady goes by,  my garage door goes up !
        any clues ?
                      d.d.