[Closed] The Long Shadow of Chernobyl

Junkyard - I have shown by simple logic that the position that nuclear is the answer to global warming is nonsense.

We do not have the fuel to fuel the amount of reactors that would be needed to make a significant difference to global warming.

In considering the question, “Are there enough
resources to meet the needs of the current
generation without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs?”, that
answer has to be yes. Sufficient nuclear fuel
resources exist to meet the energy demands of
this and future generations well into the future at
current and increased demand levels. However, to
use this potential, considerable effort and investment
will be needed to develop new mining projects
and to bring advanced technologies to bear
in a timely manner.

So looks like we have opinions to discuss. However I lack your sense of certainty in the rightness of my view.

you state your opinion like it is fact and imply [and sometime do it explicitly] that anyone who disagrees is somehow deficient in their ability to comprehend or just missing your point rather than disagreeing.

PS Tidal power is as unproven and experimental as thorium for example but I would imagine you dont conclude that is a non starter.I bet you conclude we need to invest in it , improve the technology, implement it , learn and develop better systems etc and you are certain this will work.
nor will you explain how we harness the wind with limited resources [NOT ENOUGH} or how we harness/store its power to respond to demandetc

We definitely have enough wood fibre, hemp, recycled polyester, straw, cellulose, hollow brick and wood to make a huge difference. Add even the most energy greedy insulating materials such as polythene, polystyrene, glassfibre and rockwool, double/triple glazing, heat recovery ventilation, solar water heaters, wood burners, PV ... and we can provide enough renewable energy, no problem.

*considers a weekly "Here's why you shouldn't argue online" thread*

Tidal generators have been running for many years producing electricity.

Junkyard - I have shown by simple logic that the position that nuclear is the answer to global warming is nonsense.

All you have shown is your ability to conflate personal opinion with scientific fact, and your inability to read said facts laid out for you.

As others have pointed out, I'm far from a nuclear apologist. Rather, I can see that coal is actually far more damaging, and if we must feed our need for electricity, then we need to do it with the least damaging of these methods. The simple fact is that 2GW generated by nuclear power is a lot less damaging to the environment than 2GW generated by coal. If there is only enough fuel left for one more generation of existing technology uranium fission reactors, then that's several fewer coal-fired stations that need to be built - a quantifiable reduction in pollution. What's the problem with this???

As others have said, [u]current[/u] renewable electricity methods aren't able to reduce GHG emissions by "appreciable" amounts, so by your own logic, we shouldn't bother then? Obviously there [i]may[/i] be improvements, but as we can't see that technology [b]now[/b], presumably we shouldn't consider it in the future c/f thorium or breeder reactors (or, heaven forbid, fusion).

You seem to be mistaking 'technology fetishist' for environmental scientist. I wouldn't dream of suggesting what level of care a patient needs, so I'm constantly puzzled why you seem to think you know a lot more about my own profession than I do.

As others have said, I have quite comprehensively answered your questions twice now, whilst you still can't provide a source for your inaccurate and subjective statements. I suggest you do this before continuing this 'debate' further.

[img] [/img]

We can all do something and save ourselves money.

Now we're near to the equinox the sun provides more than enough energy for our hot water and electricity needs. We lit the wood burner for the first time in a week because after three days away with the shutters closed the house had cooled down.

Zokes - what is the answer to "where are you going to get the fuel from to fuel the massive expansion of nuclear generators that is required if they are going to have any effect on global warming?"

where are you going to get the fuel

Where's your evidence that there's a shortage?

TJ - the answer is every other study that says uranium reserves are vastly greater than 40 years. Here's one:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last

No zokes this one is one me [again]

In considering the question, “Are there enough
resources to meet the needs of the current
generation without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs?”, [b]that
answer has to be yes. Sufficient nuclear fuel
resources exist to meet the energy demands of
this and future generations well into the future at
current and increased demand levels.[/b] However, to
use this potential, considerable effort and investment
will be needed to develop new mining projects
and to bring advanced technologies to bear
in a timely manner.

the link again - it has a nice chart showing you how many thousands of years it will last and everything and in no way shape or form supports your 40 year argument about fuel

It has chart at the end that refutes all you say but I cant copy it in

[s]Zokes[/s]TJ - what is the answer to "where are you going to get the fuel from to fuel the massive expansion of [s]nuclear[/s]wnd generators that is required if they are going to have any effect on global warming?"

How many times do you need to be asked a question to answer - it seems it takes three answer for you to see that it has been answered and multiple contributors pointing this out - now 2 of us have asked you twice about windmills, have we reached the point where you answer?

TandemJeremy - Member
Tidal generators have been running for many years producing electricity.
POSTED 56 MINUTES AGO #

How many years have they been testing?
How many producers have been lost to storms?
If we scale these up, how much infrastructure can we predict will be lost to storm damage?

From the scientific american piece

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year

so actually only 5.5 million tonnes known about so only a 80 year supply at current consumption rates.

So by the time we have the massive increase in nuclear reactor numbers needed to have any significant effect on global warming there is only enough fuel for a few years.

This is why nuclear reactors cannot be a part of the solution to global warming - we do not have enough fuel to run the number of reactors needed to make any significant difference.

How much is the current energy consumption in your houses? If you have central heating on guestimate the proportion of time it's running and multiply by the rating then add to what your electricity meter is reading.

2A here, or about 500W. TV, AMP, PC and a light.

Shock horror, TJ admitting that his previous facts were wrong.
But then he carries on if nothing else has changed.

TJ i included the next two paragraphs after as they dont support your 80 year view... an oversight on your part no doubt

Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

About 10 metric tons of natural uranium go into producing a metric ton of LEU, which can then be used to generate about 400 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, so present-day reactors require about 70,000 metric tons of natural uranium a year.

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

only enough fuel for a few years

Edukator not ignoring you what you say is correct we all need to look at what we use where we can control it the most and that is the home.

I'm always skeptical when we get quantitative reports of undiscovered reserves. Known unknowns.

yes but some unknowns we know we know and this is one of them 😉

How does that work though? We know for a fact there's 10.5 million tons still to be discovered even though we don't know where it is?

I'm pretty sure there's cat **** in my garden but I wouldn't want to say how much til I'd dug it all up and weighed it.

We know for a fact there's 10.5 million tons still to be discovered even though we don't know where it is?

[img] [/img]

yes ernie that is just how science works - why are you not asking the same question to TJ about the neodymium needed for his windmills ?we clearly need a few more people to ask him before he answers. Perhaps he is off googling to look for something he can post up?

Anyway as you cannot be bother following links here is the explanation

Resources believed to exist and to be exploitable
using conventional mining techniques, but not yet
physically confirmed, are classed as “undiscovered
conventional resources”. These resources include
estimated additional resources category II (EAR II),
uranium resources that are expected to be located
in well-defined geological trends of known ore
deposits, or mineralised areas with known deposits;
and speculative resources (SR), uranium resources
that are thought to exist in geologically favourable,
yet still unexplored areas

an estimate is not a fact, then again they have not weighed or extracted all the know stuff either so that is not a fact either. They are both estimates though we would all put more weight [ weight..get it ] to the "known" ones than the "unknown ones"

What do you think they do to find it [ or oil or gas or gold etc]just pick a spot and drill with their fingers crossed?

Have a gold star each, you bores. Back on topic, OP, those photos were interesting.

Zokes - what is the answer to "where are you going to get the fuel from to fuel the massive expansion of nuclear generators that is required if they are going to have any effect on global warming?"

Junkyard - Member

No zokes this one is one me [again]

See, answered. (Cheers, JY!) As before, perhaps not the answer you were looking for, but it is answered.

Now then, you made a wildly inaccurate and emotional statement on the first page of this thread about 10s of thousands dead thanks to Chernobyl. Lets see the peer reviewed data to demonstrate that this statement of yours is neither wild nor inaccurate.

Anyway, in a nutshell, it appears that your main objections to nuclear are:

1) that they are apparently dangerous and massively polluting

2) that new versions are unproven tech and cannot be relied upon to work

3) that apparently they will only-be a bit-part player so we shouldn't bother

4) that we'll soon run out of fuel for them anyway.

Totally disregarding the fact that it's now been demonstrated that all these reasons behind your objections are wrong, lets see how coal, gas, and renewables stack up against them:

1) Release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution is predicted to kill or displace >1bn people through land loss, changes to weather patterns, extreme weather events etc. Additionally, many many more people are killed in the resourcing of these fossil fuels per TWh than are by nuclear power. So in the grand scheme of things, nuclear is at best relatively benign, and at worst, certainly a 'least worst' option.

2) Current, large scale proven renewable energy is based upon hydro or wind turbines. There are precious few extra places to build hydro reservoirs, and there isn't the space for all the wind turbines we need. Pretty much every other renewable technology is still very much in development for the purposes of being able to generate a meaningful amount of energy. So in that case, using your own argument against thorium cycle or breeder reactors, we can't rely on any sort of renewable other than what we already have, and I've just demonstrated by relying on them alone won't work.

3) As aracer put it a page or so back, certain renewables will only ever be a bit-part player in global energy production. Again, using your logic (which you imply is superior to my own and that of other contributors), they aren't worth bothering with.

4) I think we've now established that there is at the very minimum enough fuel to power replacements for the existing reactor fleet for 80+ years. In reality, there's actually much more, as demonstrated above. However, this isn't the case for gas (or oil for that matter), so we'd better stop developing anything using those fuel sources. Much more pertinent to this discussion is the shortage of rare earth elements (REEs - the clue's in the name here) such as neodymium for windmills, tellurium for PV etc. So, again using your logic here, we can't use the tech for more than 40-80 years we should just stop trying.

Frankly, I don't know why I even bothered to do this last post. Your opinions (often conflated with fact in your mind) have been comprehensively demonstrated to be false.

I suppose it would be good if you could furnish us with the details of all those deaths from Chernobyl (and Fukushima too - surely a few thousand must have been killed there as there were three meltdowns and some big explosions). Perhaps that peer-reviewed evidence (that only you are aware of at present) might persuade a few more of us that we need more care when considering nuclear power?

[img] [/img]

Having cycled around the German coast and across most of its lânder I can assure you that a tiny fraction of the potential wind sites have been occupied to produce 8% of the electricity produced. I can say the same for Spain where they produce 12%.

The Germans are building pump storage reservoirs on the tops of hills with no river input. There are more than enough hillls to build enough storage.

PV is up to 3% in just a few years. Again there are more than enough sites to produce the other 97% if necessary. Pump storage or hydrogen fuels cells to store the excess on sunny summer days.

There is only one reason coal and nuclear dominate, they're cheap in the short term.

The Germans are building pump storage reservoirs on the tops of hills with no river input. There are more than enough hillls to build enough storage.

Absolute tripe. Stations such as Dinorwig are extremely profitable, and will only become more-so as more renewable energy is produced. I can assure you as someone who did his degree 8 miles from Dinorwig (hence pumped storage featured pretty heavily in these sorts of discussions) that if other suitable locations were available, they would be utilised. There are a few sites in the UK suitable, and most already have these sorts of storage facilities set up, or are in National Parks and can't be developed. There are probably also a few sites in other hilly countries, but you need a decent hanging valley to make these things work, and there aren't many of them about.

So I guess in TJ-land it's another technology that can't possibly contribute much on a global scale and hence shouldn't be considered further 😉

There is only one reason coal and nuclear dominate, they're cheap in the short term.

This bit we can both agree on, but in the interim between achieving the ultimate goal of 100% renewable, or as near as we can, nuclear is much less polluting than coal.

Lets do some back-of-the-envelope calculations:

From your German figures up there, that's 269 TWh that the Germans would need to produce by renewables to wean themselves off black and the even worse brown coal. Put it another way, on average, that's fifteen 2 GW nuclear power stations operating at 100% for 365 days of a year. Taking into account maintenance, the number required is probably nearer 20.

In terms of wind however, assuming 100 % output 356 days per year, it's 15,359 2 MW wind turbines that are required. I know Germany is quite a big country, but that's a heck of a lot of turbines, and that assumes that they are running at 100 %. So if we take an average load factor of a turbine as [url= http://www.bwea.com/energy/rely.html ]30 %[/url], that becomes 51,197 turbines you need to replace the 44% of Germany's electricity needs currently provided for by coal.

To scrap nuclear as well, the Germans would need 72,142 2 MW wind turbines.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that, but in essence, we're stuffed!

"tripe" you say. Thing is that they are building pump storage reservoirs now using lowland hills.

[img] [/img]

This graph would have continued its rise - had not the price per kWh paid to renewable energy providers been reduced. I suspect the curve will now flatten for a while.

I'll add intelligent metering to the mix to calm your worries about production and demand peaks. Signals sent remotely by energy providers to cut demand peaks and fill troughs. Your hot water tank will switch off during the advertising break and switch on when demand is low. Your washing machine and dish washer will require (an expensive) manual override to make them work during peak demand periods.

Zokes - yo still have not explained or answered that point.

Frankly, I don't know why I even bothered to do this last post. Your opinions (often conflated with fact in your mind) have been comprehensively demonstrated to be false.

Really - where? You have still not given an answers to those three questions.

the basic point is that nuclear can never make any significant contribution to stopping global warming as we do not have the fuel to fuel the massive expansion in nuclear energy that is needed to do so.

Really - where?

The vast majority of what you type on this topic, starting with:

TandemJeremy - Member

[b]plenty of proof of many ten of thousands of deaths from Chernobyl at a bare minimum

No need at all for nuclear from any rational analysis. It can never be anything other than a very small part of energy usage worldwide[/b]
Posted 2 days ago # Report-Post

You have still not given an answers to those three questions.

I think you're now just trolling to try to get a response. I've answered them twice, others have answered them several times. The fact you disagree with the answers is what a rational person capable of intelligent debate would be discussing right now. Instead, you seem to just want to ignore the fact that the majority of this thread consists of answers to your questions, and none of it contains the evidence to substantiate your wildly inaccurate claims.

the basic point is that nuclear can never make any significant contribution to stopping global warming as we do not have the fuel to fuel the massive expansion in nuclear energy that is needed to do so.

So we shouldn't use what fuel we do have to negate the much more damaging emissions from an equivalent number of coal-fired stations for the next 80+ (using your figures up there) years??? This is a puzzling position for any rational person to take.

"tripe" you say. Thing is that they are building pump storage reservoirs now using lowland hills.

Presumably with a fraction of the power output of somewhere like Dinorwig. Even that behemoth can only manage 2 GW for 8 hours before all the water's at the bottom and you have to wait 16 hours (and 6 GW of electricity) to get it back to the top and start again. This is simple physics.

Zokes - can you please then quote the answers as they are not visible to me.

Are you now accepting that nuclear will make no significant difference to global warming as there is not the fuel for the massive expansion of numbers of nuclear plants?

Plenty of proof of the Chernobyl deaths - reports from such bodies as unesco and WHO

No need at all for nuclear from any rational analysis. It can never be anything other than a very small part of energy usage worldwide

Are you refuting this? if so where are you going to get the fuel from?.

As nuclear can never be more than a bit part player in global energy generation and usage then its stupid to spend all that money and effort on it - that money and effort would be better placed being put into other measures that will actually have some significant effect.

Zokes - can you please then quote the answers as they are not visible to me.

I have made several long posts over the past three pages answering these questions, I suggest you read them.

Are you now accepting that nuclear will make no significant difference to global warming as there is not the fuel for the massive expansion of numbers of nuclear plants?

A lot of things will make no significant difference to AGW on their own, wave, tidal and wind included. What we need is a mixture, not one or the other. Please try to keep up.

Plenty of proof of the Chernobyl deaths - reports from such bodies as unesco and WHO

Let's see it then. The accepted figures currently are 64 confirmed, with an estimation of about 4000 in the long term, which from both sides of this argument will be difficult to quantify. Neither of those figures are "tens of thousands". Then compare whatever predicted figure you are prepared to regard as [b]FACT[/b] with deaths predicted as a result of the multitude of effects of AGW, and treat those projections as [b]FACTS[/b] too.

As nuclear can never be more than a bit part player in global energy generation and usage then its stupid to spend all that money and effort on it - that money and effort would be better placed being put into other measures that will actually have some significant effect.

Such as??? I refer you to the case study of Germany that Edukator kindly provided me to do some sums on up there.

As you are being particularly hard of reading on this thread, I'll say it again:

[b]A lot of things will make no significant difference to AGW on their own, wave, tidal and wind included. [u]What we need is a mixture, not one or the other.[/u] Please try to keep up.[/b]

Harness mega-tsunami power for the free energy win?

So - no answers then. I thought not.

I have read every post of yours and seen no answers to the questions posed. On "what to do with the waste" you just said "put it in a hole in the ground and ignore it" that is no answer

YOu have made no answer at all to the point about finding the fuel for all the new nukes need to have any effect on AGW - but now you seem to be accepting that despite your previous assertions that new nuclear s essential to combat AGW that nuclear cannot play any significant part in preventing AGW?

Then why do you want to spend all that money and create all that long lived deadly pollution which we have no way of dealing with for so little gain?

Again on sharing the tech - if you are not going to give reactors to every country on earth then nuclear cannot make an signitficant contribution to preventing AGW. so share the tech or accept it is going to make no difference

These three point show the impossibility of nuclear having any major effect on agw thus show the stupidity of wasting time energy effort and resources on it.

So - no answers then. I thought not.

Erm:

On "what to do with the waste" yo just said put it in a hole in the ground and ignore it"

That looks like an answer to me. At least by disagreeing with it you're acknowledging its existence, which is a start. I would suggest you find out what conventional power stations do with their waste. I think it involves chimneys and it being emitted to the atmosphere. So in most peoples' eyes, putting the waste securely underground would be a big improvement over breathing it in. But I accept that it is a point for debate, but the top and bottom ash from coal power stations is radioactive, and chemically toxic. Guess what current waste disposal routes there are for that.... You guessed it: a big hole in the ground (where unlike nuclear waste it won't be monitored or secured)

YOu have made no answer at all to the point about finding the fuel for all the new nukes need to have any effect on AGW - but now you seem to be accepting that despite your previous assertions that new nuclear s essential to combat AGW that nuclear cannot play any significant part in preventing AGW?

I did, then Junkyard did a better job than me, forcing you to accept that you were wrong and change your estimate from 40+ years to 80+ years.

Then why do you want to spend all that money and create all that long lived deadly pollution which we have no way of dealing with for so little gain?

Because right now the alternative is more coal, which will have far longer lasting and far more serious repercussions. Given the numbers of deaths projected from AGW, the numbers of deaths attributed to AGW per year already dwarf the wildest estimates of deaths caused by Chernobyl.

Take away the AGW argument entirely, and that still leaves 80 years of people dying in coal mines at a rate per TWh far far in excess of deaths caused by nuclear power

Again on sharing the tech - if you are not going to give reactors to every country on earth then nuclear cannot make an signitficant contribution to preventing AGW. so share the tech or accept it is going to make no difference

With whom do we need to share the technology? Both Iran and North Korea have civilian nuclear facilities. The next big threats to USA dominance of international politics, China and India, have nuclear power. On the other hand as aracer pointed out at the end of the first page, Switzerland is going to have a very hard time making any electricity from tidal power, and I doubt there's much capacity for solar in Iceland. For large parts of Oz, hydro might be a bit tricky...

By your argument, presumably no technology that can't be universally applied, be it for political or geographical reasons, should be pursued. This is a nonsensical argument no matter what technology (wind, solar, nuclear, wave) you apply it to. So, leave the obfuscation out of it and deal with the answers.

Because right now the alternative is more coal,

Nope - the alternative a whole raft of alternatives.

For example -In the UK putting the money spent on one nuclear reactor into house insulation will save more energy than the nuke would produce.

I have shown that nuclear cannot possibly do what you claim

Take away the AGW argument entirely, and that still leaves 80 years of people dying in coal mines at a rate per TWh far far in excess of deaths caused by nuclear power

this is the absurdity in the centre of your argument that you simply refuse to address.

You have now seemed to accept that there can be no massive expansion in nuclear power generation world wide as we do not have the fuel as well as various political consideration. However you keep claiming that nuclear will do all these things such as reducing deaths from coal mining. However without a massive increase in nuclear plants then there will be no change in the amount of coal used.

So which is it?
1) massive expansion in the number of nuclear power plants or
2) nuclear power will continue to have no significant effect on AGW or deaths from coal or anything else?

Dig a hole and chuck the waste is is no answer and you full well know that.

If I said - the answer is energy conservation ( which it is) you would rightly be pressing me for detail.

Coal isn't [i]the[/i] alternative, it's one of many. Don't forget to include the cost of land lost to rising sea levels when you calculate the price/kWh.

Switzerland has potential for hydro, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal but I agree the tidal range in lake Geneva is small.

Iceland has geothermal and hydro.

Oz has a massive PV and wind potential.

I don't want to apply one universal technology. I want to apply the most appropriate mix of technologies to each region. I don't think we should let natiional boundaries get in the way of energy planning.

[img] [/img]

Switzerland has potential for hydro, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal but I agree the tidal range in lake Geneva is small.

Iceland has geothermal and hydro.

Oz has a massive PV and wind potential.

If you are not going to give tidal/solar/hydro to every country on earth then tidal/solar/hydro cannot make an signitficant contribution to preventing AGW. so share the tech or accept it is going to make no difference

You have still not given an answers to those three questions.

[b]Are we reading the same thread?[/b] Can I shout that
He even numbers them to help you see it – he has answered so many times I have lost count 😯 😯 😯

What about you and windmills and the metals required – I bet you wish to claim you have answered that one as well don’t you 🙄

can you please then quote the answers as they are not visible to me.

OH this really is pathetic you are a grown man – no one reading this thinks he has not answered. This is the internet version of sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalaala

o - no answers then. I thought not.
I have read every post of yours and seen no answers to the questions posed. On "what to do with the waste" you just said "put it in a hole in the ground and ignore it" that is no answer

That is an answer it is just that you do not like it but it still an answer [b]so the windmills and the metals needed where are you getting it from that is not answering a question[/b]

My irony meter just blew up it

YOu have made no answer at all to the point about finding the fuel for all the new nukes need to have any effect on AGW

I have shown that nuclear cannot possibly do what you claim

What helmet for nuclear power?

Junkyard - go on then - where are the answers? Real meaningful answers or else I can simply say energy conservation will solve the problem.

He and you have ignored the key point that there is not enough fuel even using your numbers to fuel the massive expansion in nuclear power plant numbers that would be needed for nuclear power to have any significant effect on AGW or anything else.

So which is it?
1) massive expansion in the number of nuclear power plants or
2) nuclear power will continue to have no significant effect on AGW or deaths from coal or anything else?

If its 1) where is the fuel coming from?

Thankfully, Edukator, you can see all this. You clearly missed aracer's sarcasm which I was echoing, as TJ had stated that if every country couldn't have nuclear then there was no point any country utilising it.

If I said - the answer is energy conservation ( which it is) you would rightly be pressing me for detail.

At last we can agree on something. 😀

So if we save much more energy we need to use less of it, which means that what renewables we currently can use will go further, with nuclear filling in the gaps, and no more dirty coal. However, there are limits to the amount of energy that a very selfish westernised democracy can be expected to save. Given the huge number of complaints there are about something as trivial as incandescent light bulbs being phased out, I suspect any government either presiding over enforced energy efficiencies, or radically increased energy prices (e.g. petrol demonstrations) will soon cease to be a government. Its successor will most probably be voted in on the back of revoking said legislation.

Sadly I won't have to suggest this soon. Australia now has a tax on carbon emissions, and in about 1 year's time, there will be a general election. I'm prepared to eat my shorts (a la Mark and the new forum) if Abbott's main manifesto point isn't repealing the carbon tax.

Jesus wept - who actually cares? This could have been a pretty interesting thread, and now its not. Well done...

That 28 days later site is amazing, the one on the Hydro-electric power station behind Niagra falls is something else....

Indeed, Clubber. That's because the sound of their own fingers typing is a more favourable source of aural pleasure...

If you are not going to give tidal/solar/hydro to every country on earth then tidal/solar/hydro cannot make an signitficant contribution to preventing AGW. so share the tech or accept it is going to make no difference