Do you do anything but jump into a debate with nothing to add except divulge your lack of intellect and knowledge on any issue?

Again, you persist with the paranoid delusions that I am someone that knows you or has been on another forum where you post your drivel.

I'm not who you think I am, and that should tell you something about yourself.

Beo was always telling you off for this. 

You are delusional sweetheart...I suggest you get some professional help

Quote:

A straw man you say? So are you saying that nuclear power produces no net pollution? Or are you saying that the net pollution from nuclear power is less than that of wind and solar?

Quote:

Modern batteries are not made of radioactive isostopes of Uranium, or the radioactive by products that these isotopes break down into.

Quote:

Use of solar energy instead of either stored chemical potential energy or nuclear energy. Either of which results in excess heat energy being dumped into the atmosphere and oceans that would not otherwise have been dumped into those sinks. By using solar (wave and wind energy are both manifestations of solar energy) you cannot put more energy into the earth system that would not already have been there.

The mining of uranium is more intensive than that of coal, steel or silicone, and the enrichment process is more energy intensive than the refining of either coal, steel or silicone. On top of that we have no infrastructure to enrich uranium in this country meaning some would need to be installed, again more energy and resource requirements, not to mention the fact that this puts the nuclear option somewhere in the distant future at best. There is an already existing renewables industry in this country.

Quote:

Can you say desert? Can you say ocean?

Renewables are perfectly capable of base load power. Can you specify exactly what it is that makes you think they are not? From an engineering perspective the only roadblock to base load production from renewables is cost, there is no physical restraint that prevents them from being able to provide base load. Read what the others have said on flow batteries for one (already providing 100% of king island's power hooked up to wind plants) developments in fuel cell technology is another. Watch this space as fuel cells will hopefully be entering the market soon (provided they aren't killed off by existing energy monopolies), there have been many advancements in this area of late, you don't need to use pure hydrogen for example, ethanol is sufficient. We know that stored chemical potential energy is the most efficient way to transport energy, much more efficient than power lines, all you need to do is convert energy generated by renewables to a stored chemical potential form, as flow batteries and fuel cells do, and the problem of reliability goes away. Not that reliability of wind and sunshine is actually a problem in this country to begin with.

The net pollution from establishing base load sufficient wind, solar, flow batteries and implementing these technologies on a large scale has not been fully investigated.

Not by you. The thing about these technologies is that they are largely modular. You double the capacity, you double the pollution. It is still far less than coal on a per unit energy output basis.

Power transmission presents a problem for this scenario

That's what power lines are for.

The fact is, the govt and the opposition have both recognised that renewables will only ever make up a fraction of the power requirements needed for the Australian population.

99% is a fraction

Even the international energy community recognises that renewables are only good for 15-20% of glabal energy.

This is considering a tradeoff between emissions and the marginal cost. It is nothing inherent to the technologies. It just gets a bit more expensive for higher percentage because you need more storage or you need to adapt to a more variable supply. That percentage is based on an assumption about what people will pay, but if it costs more they will pay more.

Howards plan for 25 nuclear plants will amount to some 10% of our power consumption...hardly base load.

Actually, that's not what baseload means. It refers to the consistency of supply. You can supply 1% of the power and call it baseload if it can be on all the time. We need a large chunk of our supply to be highly reliable. You can get this with a distributed network of renewables of various types and some storage and over capacity. Hydro electric is a good storage option in the sense that it is better than base load. You can switch it on on demand. It can make up for some of the unreliability of renewables without the cost of batteries.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1177892540

Fossil fuel-burning industries receive up to $10 billion a year in taxpayers' money, a study has found.

The University of Technology Sydney analysis of energy and transport subsidies released on Monday said 96 per cent of those government funds went to coal, oil and gas companies in 2005-06.

In light of its findings, author Dr Chris Reidy questioned the willingness of federal and state governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions caused by fossil fuels.

The limitation on our electrical system is during peak hours.
Having renewablly charged batteries "onhand" to turn on during peak times alleviates this limitation.
Coal stations do not have the ability to rapidly change their suppply load. Batteries do.

Take some customers off the grid and charge batteries all by renewable means.
That gives us breathing space to look at alternatives.
I don't accept the "need" for 25 nuclear stations in auss to be in addition to what we have now.
Follow the money trail. Who wins with nuclear power stattion ?
Construction of new plants, mining for uranuium, refining uranium, running of new plants, shutting down plants when finished .
England has put aside 30 billion pounds (A poor memory figure from me, but a HUGE amount) to shut down some of theirs. They don't know how much it will cost, but they have earmarked a massive amount.

makes solar panels and wind mills look a safe bet to me.