“The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind”



“The times they are a changing” how right Dylan was and is.

An owner of a few coal mines once told me that he was “going to stay in the business for another five years, and then get out and buy himself a really big air conditioner.” I answered, “You could afford one now.” To which he answered “Your right I can.”

Personally I prefer to live in an environment, where I do not need an air conditioner and I’d prefer that coal & petroleum companies; through their philanthropic donations to political parties, weren’t writing government energy policies… I’d prefer solar, wind, tidal and geothermal companies to be writing government energy policies for a change.

Website: BBC News Asia-Pacific

Why nuclear power is not the answer to climate change

TOO MANY REACTORS AND NOT ENOUGH CARBON REDUCTION

Studies performed by MIT, Commission on Energy, and International Atomic Energy Agency all agree that approximately 1500 to 2000 new atomic reactors would have to be built to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by enough to make a meaningful difference.

There are currently 449 nuclear power stations (approx), If we were running around 2000 reactors in total we would exhaust our main uranium reserves in a few decades. We would then need to mine lower grade uranium, this would itself cause more greenhouse emissions. If the potential 2000 reactors were used to replace the coal stations, we would have a 20% reduction in greenhouse emissions. If used as a new capacity to replace true renewable sources, then our emissions would actually increase.

TOO MUCH MONEY

1500 more reactors would cost trillions of dollars. New reactors going online in the US in the 1980s and 90s cost on average 4 billion dollars each. Reactors to recently come online in Japan in the last few years were in the order of $2000 / KW.

Taking an average larger power plant of 1200MW and an average conservative cost of $1250 / KW, this gives a construction cost of 1.5 billion.

Yearly costs per 1000kg of avoided CO2 emmisions are $68.9 for wind and $132.5 for nuclear power.

TOO MUCH TIME

Construction of 1500 new reactors means that we will need to open a new reactor every 2 weeks beginning today, for the next 60 years. This is impossible as the current nuclear manufacturers are only capable of doing half this amount if they are pushed to their absolute capacity. Climate change cannot wait for Nukes.

TOO MUCH WASTE

Operating another 1500 or more new reactors would create the need for a new Yucca Mountain sized radioactive dump site somewhere in the world every 3 to 4 years. Yucca Mountain has been in progress for almost 20 years and still is at least 10 years from being finished. The state of Nevada has also vigorously opposed the construction of the Yucca facility.

Due to the opposition to radioactive dump sites many countries including the US are attempting to reprocess the nuclear waste, as a means of managing the waste. This is a dangerous technology, linked with increased Leukemia rates amongst children living nearby reprocessing plants as a result of increased radiation being released into the surrounding environment.

POST CONTINUES Read more

Solar Power Makes a Comeback



Video: Myspace
Invest in the security of your own home. Invest in your Power supply by installing solar panels and solar hot water systems, build a green house and grow your own food… or don’t become self sufficient.

Wong is Wrong

Well I just couldn’t resist and whilst in the moment I’ll add, two Wrongs wont make a right either Ms Wong.

This post is regarding Australia’s minister for Climate Change and Water (Penny Wong) and her relative inaction regarding Professor Ross Garnaut’s interim greenhouse review.

The story so far. Australia is dominated by the Banks, the Resource industry and the Industrial Farming sector… they are the ones, who at present with more than a little help of the Rice & Cotton mob in the not so deep north, who justify their greed with the defense of ‘export growth’ & ‘jobs’, whilst the mob in the not so deep north go on butchering our most important Murray Darling waterway.

The Garnaut Climate Change Report is handed in and it tells us what most thinking people already know… like it’s not that hard to realize that to freeze the World’s pollution at sort of 1990’s levels, when there were already signs of climatic arrhythmia, is not unlike closing the barn door after the horse has bolted… to the power of a number just sightly south of infinity.

POST CONTINUES Read more

Birth of the Aussie Greens

Treehuggers Australian Green Political Party
Photo: The Wilderness Society

The pivotal ‘Green’ moment in the last 40 years for the Australian green movement was; in our opinion, the Tasmanian Franklin River issue. It was an issue where big business, bureaucracy, politicians and the media totally ignored the will of the majority of thinking Australians… and it resulted in the formation of the Australian Green Political Party.

Senator Bob Brown MD… or Bob ‘Green’ as I keep freudianly calling him, was at the forefront of the Franklin river campaign and later went on to become the leader of the Australian Greens. As leader he has remarkably, despite an on going campaign to denigrate him and the other ‘Treehugger’ Greens, been an outstanding representative for the Australian Green movement, and will hopefully tomorrow (24/11/07) in the Australian Election be given a still greater opportunity to represent the Australians who love the planet for it’s beauty, rather than those few who profit from it’s rape & pillage.

Website: The Wilderness Society

Website: The kids and even the teachers; possibly, weren’t even alive when the Franklin river issue arrived.

Comments