Nuclear Electricity Supply

Australia is so far behind the world when it comes to Clean Energy nuclear power supply.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx

We can cover the country with solar panes, wind farms and electric cars but the simple fact is that climate change will continue just as it has always done for the past many millions of years. due to the natural wobbling of the earth on its axis. spread out over every 26,000 years the earth goes through climate changes that results in long warming periods and long cooling periods. We can not stop that and never will be able to stop it.

The only people who may benefit from solar panels, electric cars and wind farms are the manufacturers and share holders of these industries, the rest of us will go broke paying for these items/industries while at the same time being forced to live at a much lower standard than today. We will never again be able to own our own home and we will all be living in little dog boxed apartment blocks controlled by massive Property developers who will also be controlling the banking system. crime will be rampant in our streets.

I'll wait for fusion Adrian but I won't be around to see it done a commercial basis.
In the meantime we just have to do what is best for mudda earth.


cheers moredeep

Yes fusion is the way to go but it is not easy to create.
Meanwhile nuclear power is the only way to go... or more large scale hydro electricity power generators.
Solar power wind farms and batteries and elec cars are super toxic and destructive for the environment.
Hydro, Coal, gas and nuclear is the only way to go, Wake up Australia otherwise your days are numbered.

It's a complex situation the world is in Adrian, a growing population with a growing demand for the sparky juice.
It's well documented that the air quality has decreased since the industrial revolution.
And with nuclear power comes the risk of catastrophic accidents,3 mile island ,Chernobyl,and fukushima just to name a few.
Now we have a situation in Ukraine where an unstable leader in the neighbouring country could "accidently" lob a bomb on it.
I for one are glad that we don't have a big pressure cooker[reactor] that might become a target when the world eventually goes totally physco.
India and china hate each other, India and Pakistan hate each other north Korea hates everyone except china and I wont mention the middle eastern countries
I hope you're getting my drift, there's to many mad men in charge of the lolly shop


cheers    moredeep

We have been using petrol, diesel, gas coal and wood  for all of our power needs for a long time now and still we have pristine air over all of Australia.
We contribute so very close to nothing to the global green house gas tally.
    I have said it before several times over; Australia could sink into the ocean tomorrow and there would be very nearly zero alteration to the global atmospheric pollution contribution level.

adrian ss wrote:Australia is so far behind the world when it comes to Clean Energy nuclear power supply.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx

We can cover the country with solar panes, wind farms and electric cars but the simple fact is that climate change will continue just as it has always done for the past many  millions of years. due to the natural wobbling of the earth on its axis. spread out over every 26,000 years the earth goes through climate changes that results in long warming periods and long cooling periods.  We can not stop that and never will be able to stop it.

The only people who may benefit from solar panels, electric cars and wind farms are the manufacturers and share holders of these industries, the rest of us will go broke paying for these items/industries while at the same time being forced to live at a much lower standard than today.

But Adrian   the earth is warming  5-10x faster than when it  last emerged from an ice age!The main driver of climate change is now mans activities! Nuclear power is also the most expensive  form of electrical energy!

It is expensive to establish to an operational level and can take up to 6 or 7 years but once up and running the electricity  is cheap as. and the only pollution is steam.

Of course there will always be the problem of nuclear waste disposal.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx

adrian ss wrote:It is expensive to establish to an operational level and can take up to 6 or 7 years but once up and running the electricity  is cheap as. and the only pollution is steam.

Of course there will always be the problem of nuclear waste disposal.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx

Nuclear energy too expensive to replace fossil fuels: CSIRO
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/nuclear-energy-too-expensive-to-replace-fossil-fuels-20220711-p5b0pd

We have been using petrol, diesel, gas coal and wood  for all of our power needs for a long time now and still we have pristine air over all of Australia.
We contribute so very close to nothing to the global green house gas tally.
   I have said it before several times over; Australia could sink into the ocean tomorrow and there would be very nearly zero alteration to the global atmospheric pollution contribution level.
[Adrian]

It's the accumulative affect Adrian, lets add all the small countries together eg, NZ, IRELAND,PNG, TAHITI ,YEMEN,MADAGASCAR ETC
They all probably saying the same thing "we're tiny and we don't add much to the earth pollution"
Australia has roughly 20 million registered vehicles; add this to all the other SMALL countries that don't ADD much to the worlds pollution and we a looking at a couple of hundred
million cars. WE'RE all in this together. The humans are soiling their own nest and we may just have to lie in it.

cheers moredeep

adrian ss wrote:
We can cover the country with solar panes, wind farms and electric cars but the simple fact is that climate change will continue just as it has always done for the past many  millions of years. due to the natural wobbling of the earth on its axis. spread out over every 26,000 years the earth goes through climate changes that results in long warming periods and long cooling periods.  We can not stop that and never will be able to stop it.

Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-6/
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/has-there-been-climate-change

Regardless of how little an amount of CO2 we here in Australia contribute into the worlds atmosphere, one would have to be a little naïve not to see the devastating climatic events occurring round the globe, on a more constant & regular basis, now with each passing year Adrian.
If governments of the world, don't start taking climate change a little more serious than what they currently have been doing, not a worry, for the changes in climate around the world, will end up doing it for us. (& we might not like seeing nor experiencing the outcome of such climatic events yet to come)
Drastic & immediate change towards lowering the earths CO2 emissions is no longer an option, but a priority/necessity, in order to reduce (if not stabilize) warming temperatures, before its all a little, to little, to late.

Kon

Looking at the global CO levels map it appears that those countries that are creating the most CO when combined produce an average of 570 ppbv  producing approx 370 ppbv of man made CO plus the global average equals approx 570 ppbv CO.

The area of the earth producing the 200 ppbv average is far greater than the area producing the man made CO. So even if we lower all man made  CO input, the "global average" will not change by very much, hell it may even go higher.

PS:
What happens to our plants if the CO levels are reduced to zero??....They require CO & UV in order to survive.

https://www.ventusky.com/?p=21;120;1&l=co

Lets not take things from one extreme to the next Adrian, for there will be more than enough natural Co2 given out from the earths environments to more than sustain life (as has been doing so well before any of mans industrial revolutions).
All of us to some degree or another tend to contribute to the burning of fossil fuels, in turn increasing Co2 levels & green house gas.
The question here is, do we humans continue to burn even more fossil fuels, in order to satisfy our never ending thirst for consumption/expansion or, do we start doing something about it now, before it gets to the point where life in many a land locality around the globe, becomes simply unsustainable?

Kon

That is sort of what I am driving at.
Even if we take the man made co level of the top of the over all global average we are still left with a co level that is well above the ideal level of a great many moons ago when the earth was green and there were more kinds of animals than we have ever seen.
I do not see how we can ever lower the co levels created by nature, they are what they are....And even if we were able to achieve, that the global warming will continue for at least another 5 or 6 thousand years no matter what we do. We simply have to adapt to the changing climate.

Since the very beginning humans and all other animals have had to adapt to the ever changing climate. We have been able to do that several times over during the past 1.5 million years so I reckon we can still cope just fine

adrian ss wrote:
Since the very beginning humans and all other animals have had to adapt to the ever changing climate. We have been able to do that several  times over during the past 1.5 million years so I reckon we can still cope just fine  

Animals can adapt when the rates of climate change are in geological time frames.but NOT whey are rapid as at present.Just look at what happened in the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum when rapid climate change caused perhaps the largest mass extinction in the earths history!!

Very true although another mass ext might not be a bad thing the way things are going with the human race.
    All of those other mass extinctions were caused by astronomical events and volcanic eruptions.
The Earth was a pretty nasty place to be living in a couple  million years ago but the 300,000,000 years prior to our arising the environment was very lush and the planet was chockers with all kinds of animal with giant reptiles being the master race. They survived for a couple of hundred million years after  prior hundreds of millions of years of evolution during a time of plenty, but then some major disasters occurred like giant meteor impacts, earth quakes,  large and sudden tectonic plate movements, ocean coast line changing due to a possible rogue planet impact, massive tsunamis etc.

Only the meek shall , survive. we are the current Meek. and after us there will be only ants and cockroaches.

adrian ss wrote:Very true although another mass ext might not be a bad thing the way things are going with the human race.
    All of those other mass extinctions were caused by astronomical events and volcanic eruptions.
The Earth was a pretty nasty place to be living in a couple  million years ago but the 300,000,000 years prior to our arising the environment was very lush and the planet was chockers with all kinds of animal with giant reptiles being the master race.  

" All of those other mass extinctions were caused by astronomical events and volcanic eruptions." The tectonic events that produced mass extinctions and huge  rises in sea levels   were due  rises in atmospheric C02 levels and or S02 as in the great dying.
At 250 million years the greatest mass extinction the earths history happened- the great dying!This event saw the loss of up to 96% of all marine species and around 70% of terrestrial species, including plants and insects.
The last time the earth had C02 levels like now  was about 4 million   years ago when sea levels were up to 6 m higher!!!
https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-what-the-world-was-like-the-last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-were-at-400ppm-141784

The Ventusky map that I provided the link to displays Carbon Monoxide levels. CO Not CO2.
CO is way more dangerous in the atmosphere than CO2.

IF THE BELOW IS TRUE WHY ARE WE KILLING OUR ECONOMY.

Can anyone on here prove the figures wrong

Annual Australian per capita carbon dioxide emissions are in the order of 20 tonnes per person. There are 30 hectares of forest and 74 hectares of grassland for every Australian and each hectare annually sequesters about one tonne of carbon dioxide by photosynthesis. Australia has 4 per cent of the world’s global forest estate, the world’s sixth largest forested area, and the fourth largest area of forest in nature conservation reserves. On the continental landmass, grasslands and forests remove by natural sequestration more than three times the amount of Australia’s domestic and industrial carbon dioxide emissions. The expansion of woody weeds, crops reduction in regular burning, and vegetation clearing restrictions further increases natural sequestration.
Australian forests adsorb 940 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum compared to our domestic and industrial emissions of 417 million tonnes. Add to that the absorption of carbon dioxide in continental Australia to the carbon dioxide adsorption of 2,500,000 square kilometres of continental shelf waters and Australia sequesters some five times as much carbon dioxide as it emits. Australia does more than its share of the heavy lifting for global sequestration of carbon dioxide.
Australia’s net contribution to global atmospheric carbon dioxide is negative. We are already at Net Zero. This is validated by the net carbon dioxide flux estimates from the IBUKI satellite carbon dioxide data set.
None of these calculations involve the fixing of biological carbon compounds and atmospheric carbon dioxide into soils. Soils contain two or three times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere, soil carbon increases fertility and water retention and reduces farming costs. Natural sequestration in Australia locks away carbon dioxide and to lock it away carbon dioxide by industrial sequestration in deep drill holes is a foolish fashionable way of wasting large amounts of taxpayer’s money.
Using the thinking of the IPCC, UN, and activist green groups, Australia should be very generously financially rewarded with money from poor, populous, desert, and landlocked countries for removing its own emissions from the atmosphere and the carbon dioxide emissions from many other nations
Net Zero via renewable energy is an impossible dream and more and more scientists are agreeing with this. We are beggaring our country to satisfy the ego of a Labor government that is led by people so stupid they cannot even understand that reducing our emissions of only two percent of the world emissions by even 100 percent will make no difference to the level of world emissions.

Hear, hear, well spoken Bruce.

Regards Axtyr.

G'day gents

We can all debate the what's, who's, if's & why's of what the main cause of climate change is, but lets not get into a slanging match of who's more in the right or wrong.
I could just as easily say it's the governments of the world through every careless order/blunder & squander of tax payers money, that's killing the worlds economies, but some here might consider it insane words of a senseless man.
Anyways, whether through natural evolution or contribution by human ways into the atmosphere, climate change is happening & air & ocean temperatures are rising & Ice caps are melting at a dramatic rate.  
Now we the human race, either find a way of working together as one, combatting the problems/challenges/issues we face from climate change, or continue debating the who's more right & who's more wrong of climate change, sit back & continue doing little or nothing, allowing the climate over time, judge us for doing nothing at all, something of which might not be in mans favour.    

Kon

Sometimes governments get things right but not often. Currently our government isn't getting anything right.

granite2 wrote:IF THE BELOW IS TRUE WHY ARE WE KILLING OUR ECONOMY.

Can anyone on here prove the figures wrong

Annual Australian per capita carbon dioxide emissions are in the order of 20 tonnes per person. There are 30 hectares of forest and 74 hectares of grassland for every Australian and each hectare annually sequesters about one tonne of carbon dioxide by photosynthesis. Australia has 4 per cent of the world’s global forest estate, the world’s sixth largest forested area, and the fourth largest area of forest in nature conservation reserves. On the continental landmass, grasslands and forests remove by natural sequestration more than three times the amount of Australia’s domestic and industrial carbon dioxide emissions. The expansion of woody weeds, crops reduction in regular burning, and vegetation clearing restrictions further increases natural sequestration.
Australian forests adsorb 940 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum compared to our domestic and industrial emissions of 417 million tonnes. Add to that the absorption of carbon dioxide in continental Australia to the carbon dioxide adsorption of 2,500,000 square kilometres of continental shelf waters and Australia sequesters some five times as much carbon dioxide as it emits. Australia does more than its share of the heavy lifting for global sequestration of carbon dioxide.
Australia’s net contribution to global atmospheric carbon dioxide is negative. We are already at Net Zero. This is validated by the net carbon dioxide flux estimates from the IBUKI satellite carbon dioxide data set.
None of these calculations involve the fixing of biological carbon compounds and atmospheric carbon dioxide into soils. Soils contain two or three times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere, soil carbon increases fertility and water retention and reduces farming costs. Natural sequestration in Australia locks away carbon dioxide and to lock it away carbon dioxide by industrial sequestration in deep drill holes is a foolish fashionable way of wasting large amounts of taxpayer’s money.
Using the thinking of the IPCC, UN, and activist green groups, Australia should be very generously financially rewarded with money from poor, populous, desert, and landlocked countries for removing its own emissions from the atmosphere and the carbon dioxide emissions from many other nations
Net Zero via renewable energy is an impossible dream and more and more scientists are agreeing with this. We are beggaring our country to satisfy the ego of a Labor government that is led by people so stupid they cannot even understand that reducing our emissions of only two percent of the world emissions by even 100 percent will make no difference to the level of world emissions.

 Dr Ian Plimer and the spectator are simply wrong!   This is from a geologist  who is a well known climate change denier as you will see if you read the complete article! His previous book on climate has been been debunked and trashed by almost all practicing and publishing climate scientists.   i expect his latest effort will have a similar fate!
https://climatefeedback.org/authors/ian-plimer/
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/geologist-misleads-with-climate-change-proof-claim/
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33PF6ZT

But can you disprove the figures?
If you can't then I'm not interested in anything you say.
Especially not interested in the links you try using to substantiate your opinion.

granite2 wrote:But can you disprove the figures?
If you can't then I'm not interested in anything you say.
Especially not interested in the links you try using to substantiate your opinion.

Can you show that the figures are correct and from a credible source?    But based on the fact that   Plimer has previously published a litany of falsehoods on climate change I place NO credibility whatsoever on his latest diatribe!   In fact he repeats a number of falsehoods in the article!
eg" Furthermore, it has never been shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming." The cumulative evidence for this is now beyond ALL reasonable doubt!

I'm not going to argue, if you cannot disprove the figures I'm not interested in your opinion.

granite2 wrote:I'm not going to argue, if you cannot disprove the figures I'm not interested in your opinion.

Australia added a NET of more than 400 million tons of carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere in 2021, the most recent year for which data is available, after accounting for natural carbon sinks such as trees.  I rest my case!!! Australia is not at net zero emissions!!!!!!

Degradation of “vegetated coastal ecosystems” like mangroves due to climate change is already seeing 3 million tonnes of CO2 per year being released back into the atmosphere. in Australia each year and these emissions are rising!!

🤫

granite2 wrote:I'm not going to argue, if you cannot disprove the figures I'm not interested in your opinion.

Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia totalled 533 million tonnes CO₂-equivalent based on greenhouse gas national inventory report data for 2019; representing per capita CO₂ emissions of 21 tons, three times the global average. Coal was responsible for 30% of emissions. The national Greenhouse Gas Inventory estimates for the year to March 2021 were 494.
I think  i have comprehensively disproved your figures!!!!!