Woes of Wind Power

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Malacasta

but if environmentalism is used for leverage to create a government that's taxing more and giving more to the people, then that's more communist.

It's really not!

I said "if". It's hypothetical. I'm just saying that it's possible for something to be "more communist" without being backed by an overtly communistic/totalitarian group.

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by kestra
Even though the human race will die out long before the waste ever decomposes, I just hate the idea of having to take these extraordinary means of disposing of the waste.
Shit happens, and the fear of the waste leaking or falling into the wrong hands is a real concern.

Burying the stuff a few hundred feet underground, where it can't hurt anyone or anything doesn't seem extraordinary to me. And it getting into 'the wrong hands' is more a psychological problem than a real public safety issue.

I also want to point out that nobody in the industry wants to bury nuclear waste and leave it there for all time. We just want to put it somewhere safe until we recycle it, or figure out something else to do with it.

[Malacasta]

Originally posted by Snrrub What is fucked up about it? If one considers all costs associated with nuclear energy, from construction to plant maintenance to decommissioning and cleanup, nuclear is the cheapest way to produce electricity (except for coal)

Is that really true? I was looking at some of the stuff about vegetable dye solar collectors and the google funded research, and there is an argument out there that solar will be as cheap or cheaper than coal within the next few years.

I also wonder how politics will handle uranium. Here in Australia there are always huge campaigns revolving around the mining of uranium (because for one thing a lot of it tends to be buried on Koorie land and the asking price of the mining companies is embarrassingly low). There's always also a huge argument about who we sell uranium to, for example, India and China have both promised to only use Australian uranium for nuclear power even though they both have a nuclear weapons program. Some conservatives (such as Bolt) want us to sell to India because we're friendlier to them, even though they have broken the nuclear powers agreements.

If Australia condones the sale of uranium to India then there is no particularly good argument for why we couldn't sell to other countries not sanctioned to hold nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, you'd have to be some sort of naive git to believe that neither China or India would use Australian uranium for domestic power purposes only. Even if they are disciplined and hold to their promises, using Oz uranium for domestic power frees up their other uranium supplies for nuke weapon programs - so the whole argument's silly anyways; selling Oz uranium will lead to nuclear weapon proliferation. It's kinda like that old saying about digging your own grave or being given enough rope IMO.

Now I'm not arguing that the world will ever disarm itself of nukes. I have no idea how such a thing could ever be achieved. It's just that I don't know how much safer the world will be when any country can start a nuclear weapons program based on the purchase of cheap domestic uranium (and do be honest here, we are on the brink of war with a country who our leaders argue (for what THAT'S worth) is doing that very thing). Additionally, if those countries that DO create their own nuclear weapons programs (such as India and Pakistan) can do without meaningful chastisement, and other countries such as North Korea actually appear to become less threatened, then why WOULDN'T they become nuclear armed?

Anyways, these are questions that always sit in the back of my mind when we think about nuclear power stations. I don't have any answers, but I wonder if those who spruik for a nuclear powered future give them any consideration at all and what their answers are.

[Cerceri]

Originally posted by karahd
I don't really see the problem. It's not like anybody is using Manitoba for anything anyway.

Ooooh, ouch! But we don't need wind turbines anyway. We've got hydro (and all the complaints about how it messes up the nature and effects the aboriginal reserves, etc, to go with it). Woo!

[Savaric]

Originally posted by Malacasta
If Australia condones the sale of uranium to India then there is no particularly good argument for why we couldn't sell to other countries not sanctioned to hold nuclear weapons.

What a rediculous thing to say.

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by Malacasta
Is that really true? I was looking at some of the stuff about vegetable dye solar collectors and the google funded research, and there is an argument out there that solar will be as cheap or cheaper than coal within the next few years.

I don't have the numbers at my desk at the moment, but the total cost of nuclear electricity is about $0.055/kW-h. Wind and solar are both above $0.5/kW-h (in fact I think one of them is something like $0.8).

Originally posted by Malacasta
using Oz uranium for domestic power frees up their other uranium supplies for nuke weapon programs

They can actually do both at once. India and Pakistan both used CANDU-style reactors to burn uranium for electricity while simultaneously breeding plutonium for their weapons inventory. CANDU, by the nature of its design, is particularly prone to this dual-use. However, there are technologies that make the proliferation of nuclear weapons more difficult.

Originally posted by Malacasta
so the whole argument's silly anyways; selling Oz uranium will lead to nuclear weapon proliferation.

Not always. If a country had a fleet of light water reactors, but didn't have any enrichment facilities, then selling enriched uranium to that country would not be a proliferation risk. Also, there are researchers currently working to develop enrichment technology that is only capable to enriching uranium to about 5% or 10%. That's enough for nuclear power, but is completely useless in nuclear weaponry.

[kestra]

They can actually do both at once. India and Pakistan both used CANDU-style reactors to burn uranium for electricity while simultaneously breeding plutonium for their weapons inventory. CANDU, by the nature of its design, is particularly prone to this dual-use. However, there are technologies that make the proliferation of nuclear weapons more difficult.

You can thank/blame Canada for selling the reactors to India.

[Rosuav]

If a country wants a weapons programme, they're going to get it. Nobody has the backbone, resources, and intelligence network to actually prevent a country like China from making nuclear weapons - or for that matter, any other sort. All we can do is position ourselves so that we're not seen to be responsible. Back in the 80s, the BBC comedy show "Yes Minister" looked at this subject, and most of what they said then is still valid. See wiki.) It'd be not impossible, and probably not difficult, for a country to buy through a third party; as long as that third party has one nuclear power plant and announces its intention to build more, we (Australia) would have no reason not to sell them uranium.

Even if we, the nations who have uranium deposits, manage to perfectly control who gets the stuff, countries that want weapons will get weapons. It's the same thing, on a larger scale, as the constant struggle between terrorists and antiterrorists - and law-abiding citizens get caught in the crossfire (no taking more than 100mL of liquid on a plane, now, etcetera etcetera). Suppose a new type of bomb is developed that can devastate entire cities, and is developed from coal. China currently imports MASSIVE amounts of coal from Australia (the Queensland coal trains are legendary... see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6L56g1yFs0 and note that they have to put one locomotive half way down, rather than have them all at the front, because the strain on the couplings would be too great), and if they turn that into bombs, well, are we going to suddenly recall all the coal we've sent them?

However, this is another good argument in favour of wind turbines. I can't think of any way that you could buy materials purportedly for wind, and use them for weapons... except maybe as raw metal.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Snrrub
I don't have the numbers at my desk at the moment, but the total cost of nuclear electricity is about $0.055/kW-h. Wind and solar are both above $0.5/kW-h (in fact I think one of them is something like $0.8).

You don't seriously mean that wind and solar power cost 50c/kWh? That can't be right, surely? I'm not sure what electricity costs world-wide (to be honest, I'm not even sure what it costs to power the house I live in), but figures gleaned from the internet indicate that Australian electricity costs 3-4c per kWh, and American electricity much more - http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...able5_6_a.html says the cheapest residential electricity (in March 08) is in West Virginia, 6.7c, and ranges all the way up to 18.49c for Conneticut (and even higher for Hawaii, which makes sense).

If you meant 5.5c for nuclear and 8c for solar, that's not all that much of a difference. I'm not sure where Australia's electricity comes from; I think our baseload is still mostly coal (in Victoria, brown coal from Yallourn), which would explain the low cost. But we have other sources of power too.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Malacasta
As a person who has communist friends in Australia's main green group, let me categorically state that these groups are NOT fronts for communists.

LOL. Didn't you kinda sorta just make my point?

Originally posted by Malacasta
There are communists in the groups, and communist groups often lend support to green causes, or back green parties in elections

Thank you for more backup.

Originally posted by Malacasta

The idea that communist parties would actually sabotage green advances om technology so that the greens groups wouldn't become redundant and leave the communists without a cover is one of the funniest things I've ever read.

Where did I say commies wanted to sabotage green advances? I never said anything of the sort.

Commies and Extreme Greenies have one thing very much in common: they love government control of the private sector.

Commies love the cover they get from green parties. Of course they would not want to sabotage them.

Originally posted by Malacasta

I mean, you tell Kestra to stop reading Moveon all the time, well with respect to this particular line of attack I suggest you stop reading WND or whatever whacked out source gives you such bizarre ideas.

I have never heard of WND, and exactly what bizarre ideas are you referring to?

The communist movement has gone underground and has infiltrated most of the "Green" parties worldwide. The US Green Party had as one of its main platform elements a 100% tax on all income over 5 or 10 times minimum wage. That's just one example.