Australian Politics Forum - Tide turns in favour of wave power

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Tide turns in favour of wave power Reply #15 - Jun 14^th, 2012 at 3:17pm bludger wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 11:23pm: Wave power is far more productive than anything else. The sheer weight of water is almost unstoppable. This is real baseload. oH, YEH: it would be a real coup and will undergo serious research and development once the NBN comes in!!
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 41838 Gender:	Re: Tide turns in favour of wave power Reply #16 - Jun 14^th, 2012 at 3:48pm I have been following carnagie wave power for some time. Not bought shares iin them yet, but like their idea. http://www.carnegiewave.com/ http://www.carnegiewave.com
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: Tide turns in favour of wave power
Reply #17 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:39pm

muso wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 6:41am:

Thorium based nuclear power is the go. Australia has something like 30% of the world's reserves of Thorium. It offers more advantages in terms of reduced nuclear waste, and some technologies can be used to consume nuclear waste. It's still a finite resource, but it has its place in the mid term.

I'm not opposed to nuclear per se (I think it has significant obstacles though that I'm not sure can be overcome) the case for thorium reactors has been wildly overstated over the last few years. While they sound good in theory the reality of the matter is that in over forty years no-one has managed to build a commercially viable thorium programme, and not for want of trying - Japan just gave up on theirs recently after 30 years of research. They said that it still has potential and, maybe, in another thirty years might prove viable, but they've already sunk billions into what has proved to be a very costly white elephant.

The UK Nuclear Laboratory commissioned a report into the feasibility of thorium a few years ago and found that it just wasn't commercially viable and that it would take at least fifteen years of effort and investment before the thorium cycle could be incorporated into existing infrastructure, much less somewhere like here in Australia where we don't have any existing infrastructure:

Can't post links but if you Google "uk nuclear laboratory report thorium" it's the first search result.

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Tide turns in favour of wave power
Reply #18 - Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:54pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:39pm:

muso wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 6:41am:

Thorium based nuclear power is the go. Australia has something like 30% of the world's reserves of Thorium. It offers more advantages in terms of reduced nuclear waste, and some technologies can be used to consume nuclear waste. It's still a finite resource, but it has its place in the mid term.

I'm not opposed to nuclear per se (I think it has significant obstacles though that I'm not sure can be overcome) the case for thorium reactors has been wildly overstated over the last few years. While they sound good in theory the reality of the matter is that in over forty years no-one has managed to build a commercially viable thorium programme, and not for want of trying - Japan just gave up on theirs recently after 30 years of research. They said that it still has potential and, maybe, in another thirty years might prove viable, but they've already sunk billions into what has proved to be a very costly white elephant.

The UK Nuclear Laboratory commissioned a report into the feasibility of thorium a few years ago and found that it just wasn't commercially viable and that it would take at least fifteen years of effort and investment before the thorium cycle could be incorporated into existing infrastructure, much less somewhere like here in Australia where we don't have any existing infrastructure:

Can't post links but if you Google "uk nuclear laboratory report thorium" it's the first search result.

That's a pity. I admit that my information is probably a bit old.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged