tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post5488242681906660167..comments2023-04-04T17:49:05.094+10:00Comments on The Oil Drum - ANZ: It could have been worse!Big Gavhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-79163922522175666472011-03-22T18:18:49.586+11:002011-03-22T18:18:49.586+11:00Hi BlueRock,
Barry started off as a pro-renewable ...Hi BlueRock,<br />Barry started off as a pro-renewable energy advocate. Then he started reading Mackay's "Renewable Energy without the hot air" and Ted Trainer and started asking the top 20 questions one should ask about a power supply and was simply won over.<br /><br />I used to point people to the Diesendorf PDF that Gav quoted above.<br /><br />But now I point people to the debates between Barry and Diesendorf, and Barry's making headway. There are questions that need answering, and we don't have much time because peak oil is ticking away and the price keeps rising. Soon our means of building out thousands of km's of solar will be reduced. About 50 reactors in Australia would give us pretty much most of the clean electricity and transport energy we needed.<br /><br />I'm not convinced by Diesendorf, I wish I were. The world would be a friendly, easier place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-15530637993387129372011-03-22T03:35:00.887+11:002011-03-22T03:35:00.887+11:00Hi BlueRock.
Just to clarify:
I realised later th...Hi BlueRock.<br /><br />Just to clarify:<br />I realised later that for some reason EclipseNows first few comments got spam binned. Thus <br /><br />> [Barry Brook is] not against renewables...<br /><br />is actually ENs quote which I pasted (thus it appears under my name) from my email notification version.<br /><br />As I said, BB works from a particular set of premises and his argument develops from there.SPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467929366702367892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-70513750845286647362011-03-22T01:30:07.903+11:002011-03-22T01:30:07.903+11:00SP:
> [Barry Brook is] not against renewables....SP:<br /><br />> [Barry Brook is] not against renewables...<br /><br />http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/10/np-cc-pamphlet/<br /><br />'Renewable power does not work'<br /><br />Barry Brook is an ideologue. <br />A dangerous one. He is a pro-nuke, anti-renewable propagandist.<br /><br />Ironically, he's as trustworthy on energy as Anthony Watts is on climate science. That is to say: not at all.BlueRocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-66844039024102979882011-03-22T01:12:17.486+11:002011-03-22T01:12:17.486+11:00Closing comments for me...
"and all that hipp...Closing comments for me...<br />"and all that hippie stuff,"<br />I'm in a developing nation at the moment... and what I've got is a luxury, not a "hippie" lifestyle choice :-).<br /><br />You are right about one thing, Eclipse, the public needs information so they can choose. When you say "They want energy, and lots of it," I must have missed that survey. What if, after your education program they still say no? Re-education?<br /><br />People love what they don't have to pay for... will they pay for nuclear - because I don't think industry is going stump up the dosh for purely altruistic reasons.<br /><br />And after Fukushima (in addition to the climate change premium already felt) these things are not insurable privately.<br /><br />So long as we hold out this promise that in 20+ years time we will have all the power we could ever squander there will be no change.<br /><br />We should implement all other measures in the meantime. We can lay those best laid plutonium plans (and that's a real non starter I think) and see if the public still wants it.<br /><br />Its not going to be an easy choice because alternatives will mean some lifestyle indulgences will not be possible. But that doesn't have to mean we will be unhappy cave dwellers.<br /><br />I remember way back in the 70s, must have been a little after the oil shocks, stagflation was the crazy dance we moved to and my little country school received a visit from a nice man (smart casual with tie) telling us about the wonders and safety of nuclear power (was it a Govt. program?). Back then I was sold. But around the same time (wish I could remember exactly) 3 Mile happened and that was that.<br /><br />Dr Tainter made a comment at BNC about Fukushima that the point wasn't solely the marvel of the technology. It was the system - and one of the weakest links in that system is people. If news reports are to be believed, Fukushima got worse because of some poor deciscions, like venting an explosive gas into a hot confined space (which knocked out some pumps when it exploded). I'm sure there are going to be some questions asked about the loading of that pool.<br /><br />The weather vane for other nations will be what happens in Japan. Japan (like France) may have no choice... but if a population that has had Nuclear for 40 years expresses distrust? Lets see.SPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467929366702367892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-32976846470738312392011-03-21T14:42:49.496+11:002011-03-21T14:42:49.496+11:00Hi Big Gav,
"That all sounds great except th...Hi Big Gav,<br /><br />"That all sounds great except they don't actually exist and no one wants them near where they live or their watershed." <br />Except those watersheds are currently being fouled by coal mining and supply systems and power stations that dump 16 tons of uranium and 4 tons of thorium into the atmosphere each year, far more than nukes do. All I can say is the public need education? They want energy, and lots of it, they don't want it to bankrupt them with smart grids and super grids and 3005 capacity overbuilds to ensure that when the sun ain't shining and the wind ain't blowing, there's something coming from somewhere ...<br /><br />Safe Gen3 reactors do exist, they're the AP1000 and Candu's. But Gen4 has had largely political setbacks due to a misunderstanding of the type of plutonium involved, and it looks like the General Electric are finally about to build their prototype S-PRISM Gen4 reactor in the USA. But I doubt it will be the first, as China and Russia are playing with Gen4 technology as well. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-PRISM<br /><br />We could *hypothetically* close uranium mining for half a millennia as that is how long just today's waste will take to burn up.<br /><br />But because it will take a few decades to 'breed' the waste — with the 'waste' from one reactor eventually doubling to supply fuel for another separate reactor (as the uranium is converted gradually into non-bomb plutonium) — we'll still need to mine uranium for a generation or so yet as we build out today's Gen3 reactors. These will burn the uranium up into starter fuel kits for the Gen4 reactors. Look on the bright side. After our generation all the Gen3 reactors can be closed down, all the uranium mines can be closed down, and we'll just burn the waste for a thousand years or so!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-88176405119582631952011-03-21T14:37:39.533+11:002011-03-21T14:37:39.533+11:00Hi SP
"I am currently experiencing what it is...Hi SP<br /><i>"I am currently experiencing what it is like to live a different life. The house connection has a limit of 1500W. Our naughty indulgence (in the tropics) is an air conditioner in our bedroom set at 28C."</i><br />Good luck with that. I'm a fan of New Urbanism and Earthships and all that hippie stuff, I really am if you check out my blog.<br /><br />But 20 years in Denmark and have they shut down a single coal fired power plant yet? But 10 years after deploying nukes in France and they are supplying 90% of their electricity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-42913702426674180402011-03-21T13:12:44.805+11:002011-03-21T13:12:44.805+11:00That all sounds great except they don't actual...That all sounds great except they don't actually exist and no one wants them near where they live or their watershed.<br /><br />Whereas my suggestions are practical.<br /><br />but don't let that (or the disaster in Japan, or the huge cost overruns on reactors actually being built today, or reports from bank analysts who don't appear to have any particular bias) deter you...Big Gavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-19121361686488322552011-03-21T12:52:51.022+11:002011-03-21T12:52:51.022+11:00Just look at this list of 'externalised costs&...Just look at this list of 'externalised costs' Big Gav quoted.<br /><br />"expanded grid with a diverse range of renewables (geographically and with a mix of wind, solar - CSP and PV, tidal, geothermal, hydro, biogas) coupled with demand management / smart grids and energy storage"<br /><br />expanded grid = supergrid. Expensive, enormous grid lines covering thousands of km's to attempt to capture electricity from 'somewhere' on a reliable basis. I used to rave about super-grids. But how much will they cost?<br /><br />diverse range = overbuild of capacity in the quest for a little bit more reliability; but no guarantees.<br /><br />demand management = hoping it will all work out somehow.<br /><br />smart grids = more expense<br /><br />energy storage = more expense.<br /><br />With GenIV nukes, you just plug them in and it is fixed! No 'smart grid' costs, no super-grid costs. Indeed, the S-PRISM is proposed to be a 300 MW reactor that operates at 90% capacity enabling smaller, African village scaled grids.<br /><br />Order 4 nukes and get free fries! ;-)<br /><br />Yes the GenIV reactor has been promised for decades. But remember the Clinton administration banned them because of the 'p' word. Plutonium freaked them out. But it's not weapons grade, indeed, the plutonium in these reactors almost CAN'T be made into weapons!<br /><br />That is, if you were going to build bombs there are cheaper and easier and more direct ways to do it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-66499955652348447302011-03-21T12:23:29.219+11:002011-03-21T12:23:29.219+11:00Hi EclipseNow.
For some reason your comments are t...Hi EclipseNow.<br />For some reason your comments are turning up in the spam bin. I've unspammed one of your comments, the content of the other I already posted above.<br /><br />I have thought that using Nuclear to replace say Hazelwood etc in Vic for example might be acceptable, on the proviso (among others) that there was no future expansion. But where are you going to put it?<br /><br />Like Hydro, there are only so many acceptable sites technically: water, transport, grid. One [nearly] optimal site is Portland where you could place it right next to Victorias largest single electricity customer (ALCOA ~ 20%) BUT the company that proposed that idea fell over and politically I don't think it will fly.<br /><br />Barrys site concentrates on the technical aspects - and as far as I recall starts with the premise that (to paraphrase) "we cant run 'our' culture on renewables".<br /><br />Every rational argument starts with a set of premises... and those at BNC lead to certain conclusions.<br /><br />So from that start point perhaps he is right. My question is why can't we change?<br /><br />I am trying to cultivate (or maintain) a sense of caution to any argument that seems to be saying "the only solution is" - no matter how many footnotes.<br /><br />I am currently experiencing what it is like to live a different life. The house connection has a limit of 1500W. Our naughty indulgence (in the tropics) is an air conditioner in our bedroom set at 28C.SPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467929366702367892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-76636931399548754322011-03-21T12:16:32.298+11:002011-03-21T12:16:32.298+11:00The Baseload Fallacy :
http://Fwww.sustainability...The Baseload Fallacy :<br /><br />http://Fwww.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/BaseloadFallacy.pdf<br /><br />And you know full well that demand management / smart grids make the idea of "baseload" power irrelevant.<br /><br />As for the "months of no solar PV due to La Nina" nonsense - you can't be serious ?<br /><br />Are you saying the sun hasn't shone at all for 2 months ? Where ? Sydney has been bone dry for starters - it was the driest start to the year since 1965.<br /><br />And as solar PV output matches peak demand really well (ie. it generates on hot, sunny days), you are just showing that you are obsessed with the idea of "baseload", not with actual demand from the real world...Big Gavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-30422164986535850262011-03-21T11:41:27.995+11:002011-03-21T11:41:27.995+11:00Sorry, I meant to say:
"Gen3 is ALREADY expo...Sorry, I meant to say:<br /><br />"Gen3 is ALREADY exponentially safer than Gen2, a real quantum leap."<br /><br />Those markets that are currently buying Gen3 reactors like the AP-1000 and CANDU's already have exponentially more safety than Gen2 Japanese reactors.<br /><br />In other words, the HSBC article is misleading.<br /><br />The other thing is the dollar investment in renewables is also misleading. We can throw heaps of money into stuff like solar PV which only works 1/4 the day, and goes off-line for whole MONTHS in this La Nina weather we have, or we can put far less money into baseload Nukes that generate more BASELOAD power.<br /><br />What's not being factored into those 'levelised costs' of wind is what it takes to make it work. Or are we just going to ignore that it's not baseload?<br /><br />I'm sorry, but I just find 'levelised costs' of wind quoted at me insulting unless they address the baseload question. I'd LOVE them to be truly baseload, but I have to deal with reality. They're not. Leaving the baseload COSTS out of the equation is like coal not factoring its real costs on our health and environment. Wind stats just 'externalise' the baseload question in exactly the same way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-60197429445012174082011-03-21T11:34:38.619+11:002011-03-21T11:34:38.619+11:00But the HSBC assumption that new nukes will cost 2...But the HSBC assumption that new nukes will cost 25% more for more safety ignores the fact that these Japanese reactors are GEN2 REACTORS, not today's state of the art GEN3 reactors. Gen3 is exponentially safer than Gen2, a real quantum leap.<br /><br />They've demonstrated Neutron Leak in tests as far back as the late 80's!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-64467244265970104262011-03-21T11:23:52.514+11:002011-03-21T11:23:52.514+11:00Sorry - Im issed the key quotes :
It is interesti...Sorry - Im issed the key quotes :<br /><br /><i>It is interesting to note that the rollout of nuclear, even with the dawn of its much-touted renaissance, was likely to be dwarfed by the investment in renewables in the coming decade. In a report released over the weekend, analysts at HSBC forecast the nuclear rollout – even before the Fuskushima incident – would be around 16GW a year over the next decade. That’s considerably more than has been installed over the past decade, but it pales in comparison with the 92GW of renewables that HSBC estimates will be installed each year over the same period. ...<br /><br />As this site also noted last week, the most predictable impact of Fukushima will be on nuclear costs, as extra layers of safety are nevitably added to new and current reactors. HSBC says this could add a 25 per cent uplift on capital costs for nuclear, lifting its estimates for the levelised cost of energy for nuclear to more than €60 per MWh of electricity produced, not including decommissioning costs.<br /><br />This compares, says HSBC, to an LCOE of €56-83/MHw for traditional fossil fuel technologies (an average of €68/MWh) and and €58-70/MHw for wind. “We estimate nuclear decommissioning costs of around €45/MWh, giving a total LCOE for nuclear at €106/MWh, which is considerably more expensive than wind,” it says.</i>Big Gavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-55674779482462603842011-03-21T11:22:23.177+11:002011-03-21T11:22:23.177+11:00Interesting article from Giles Parkinson - note ho...Interesting article from Giles Parkinson - note how new renewable construction was dominating new nuclear construction even before the Fukushima disaster :<br /><br />http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/bright-green-sea-red<br /><br /><i>Amid the carnage on the Japanese stock market last week caused by the combined impacts of the earthquake, the tsunami and the nuclear crisis, one stock shone bright green in a sea of red.<br /><br />The share price of Japan Wind Development Co Ltd – a small, loss making wind farm operator – jumped sharply from ¥31,500 on March 11 to ¥47,000 three trading days later, as the overall market slumped more than 15 per cent.<br /><br />The contribution of Japan’s wind sector (274MW) to the country’s electricity grid is paltry, but at least it emerged unscathed from the natural disasters, while 10GW of nuclear and 8GW of coal-fired power were disabled. And as we noted on Friday, global green stocks have been well supported by investors in the past week, mostly on the belief that governments will turn increasingly to renewables (and energy efficiency) as their clean energy option.<br /><br />In reality, it is still too early to say how the crisis at Fukushima will play out, beyond the immediate reactions of government, but given the experience post Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, and the indelible images of exploding reactors in Japan that will be left in the public and political mind, it seems fair to assume that the rollout of nuclear facilities will be stalled and downgraded, at least for the next decade, and there will be a renewed focus on renewables and energy efficiency. ...<br /><br />But some pro-nuclear activists are insistent, even to the point of arguing that excessive amounts of radiation is actually good for you, as the prominent Fox News columnist Ann Coulter did late last week. "With the terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the only good news is that anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer,” she wrote.</i>Big Gavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-75671021987457629372011-03-21T11:19:47.815+11:002011-03-21T11:19:47.815+11:00Dave - people have been making these misguided and...Dave - people have been making these misguided and incorrect predictions for decades - "clean", "safe", "cheap" nuclear power is an unattainable mirage.<br /><br />As I've explained many times before, an expanded grid with a diverse range of renewables (geographically and with a mix of wind, solar - CSP and PV, tidal, geothermal, hydro, biogas) coupled with demand management / smart grids and energy storage is both practical and affordable compared to an expensive and risky nuclear build out.<br /><br />When I was younger I used to believe the hype put out by the nuclear spin merchants - those days are long gone now and I view nuclear as a dirty and dangerous dead end.Big Gavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-21687697758630967712011-03-21T09:49:45.202+11:002011-03-21T09:49:45.202+11:00EG: Can molten salt storage tanks really provide e...EG: Can molten salt storage tanks really provide electricity in a fortnight of intense rain? What about seasonal fluctuations? If they don't provide the energy we need, are we then assuming another 50% to 100% capacity over-build by wind? What about quiet, wet weeks with little sunshine or wind? Apparently we'll just borrow from Queensland ... on and on the argument goes. It just assumes exponential overbuild that we just can't afford.<br /><br />What about the history of Denmark V France in reducing Co2? 20 years of wind in Denmark and they are still at 650g Co2 per KWH, where after a 10 year nuke build-out France is at 90g.<br /><br />Let alone that, what about severe weather events as global warming picks up a bit? How would they go in a severe hail storm or cyclone? The one thing I kept thinking during cyclone Yasi is how many wind turbines and solar PV's were being trashed. Only nukes would survive that. They have to. Then it's just a matter of rewiring after the Cyclone.<br /><br />Big Gav, you know I'm only a recent convert to nukes. I fought it for the longest time. But eventually those Ted Trainer questions get to you. Eventually, I just looked at our society and wondered which sector had ever reduced energy consumption in the way Mark Diesendorf assumes we will. I looked at peak oil and the new demand for electricity from electric cars, and suddenly found myself wondering why people assumed we'd all be happy to have our cars run our house when the wind and solar stopped. Why? Don't we want our cars to be full in the morning? <br /><br />Ian Lowe is another environmentalist I really respect, but on nukes I disagree with him. He's said that we just don't need baseload power! It's a myth! We don't really need much electricity at night! Hello, when are we going to be charging all our electric cars? Won't there be such a demand on electricity from them we'll *still* have to have an internet connected 'smart car' system for *staggering* when they all charge throughout the night or we'll crash the grid if they all plug in at the same time?<br /><br />What's so efficient about having VTG cars anyway — once those electrons have charged the car, aren't they actually meant to drive? Wouldn't it be better if we stopped pretending, looked at the history of Denmark V France, and got real?<br /><br />Nukes today have passive safety systems old Gen2 nukes at Japan just don't. (Like "Neutron Leak" which shuts down the fuel rods the moment they overheat).<br /><br />Nukes today are built as individual hand-crafted projects like a Rolls Royce, but in future components will come off a production line like more regular family cars — like Hyundai's for example. The cost of nuclear power will crash!<br /><br />And the new nukes will BURN the waste! We could shut down uranium mining, the fuel is free! It's already there, sitting in 'waste' storage dumps around the world. By the time we've finished burning all the waste in 500 years time we should have fusion, or 'super-batteries' 100 times cheaper and 100 times more powerful that make renewables a real option. Or space solar. Who knows? That's 500 years away.<br /><br />But we've got to get there first, and I'm not convinced we can do that on a power source that makes us dance to the weather.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-56530213311491494432011-03-21T09:49:20.960+11:002011-03-21T09:49:20.960+11:00Hi Big Gav and SP,
First, commenting has probably ...Hi Big Gav and SP,<br />First, commenting has probably been weird because I’m trying Open ID and Wordpress commenting ever since I migrated my blog to wordpress.<br /><br />Second, BNC has read a bit 'funny' — I'll grant that. One of the main protagonists there was quite dodgy, and that was Peter Lang. He's been ranting against a Carbon Tax so vociferously and personally insulting anyone that disagrees, so Barry banned him for 6 months.<br /><br />Third, on Mark V Barry. <br />BNC readers report back that when Mark and Barry go head to head at public forums, and the forum votes, the anti-nuclear vote usually decreases by the end of the debate.<br /><br />Fourth, you know you are both far more technically educated than I am, but I can't escape Barry's many questions. They are the questions that I have long fought in trying to deny doomerism; and struggled with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-68479166331057704072011-03-21T02:12:39.947+11:002011-03-21T02:12:39.947+11:00Also in response to your other comments I offer tw...Also in response to your other comments I offer two curiously similarish wikipedia biographies.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Brook_%28scientist%29" rel="nofollow">Barry Brook</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Diesendorf" rel="nofollow">Mark Diesendorf</a><br /><br />Two well educated prominent environmentalists - on opposite sides of the nuclear debate.SPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467929366702367892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-61107251026065486352011-03-21T01:50:36.577+11:002011-03-21T01:50:36.577+11:00And my answer.
I used the word "supported&qu...And my answer.<br /><br />I used the word "supported" and not sponsored.<br /><br />Dr Barry Brook has made it clear that he is supported by people in the nuclear industry. Not financially but by having access to information. He also publishes guest posts. So he does fall into that category.<br /><br />Perhaps in one sense his website may be compared to the movie Top Gun (or any Hollywood Military Caper): access (to the military hardware, footage etc) so long as the message is good.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Hollywood-Pentagon-Shapes-Censors/product-reviews/1591021820" rel="nofollow">Operation Hollywood at Amazon (reviews)"</a><br />Review at <a href="http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/OperationHolly.htm" rel="nofollow">About dot com</a>SPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467929366702367892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-67016438904860985012011-03-21T01:22:41.173+11:002011-03-21T01:22:41.173+11:00In the interest of reassuring potential posters th...In the interest of reassuring potential posters that comments are not just deleted, the following is the comment from Ecipse Now as it appeared in my inbox. I don't know what happened.<br /><br />Eclipse Now<br />Thanks for your reply (in the other thread where I mistakenly placed it).<br /><br />I just wanted to reply to one phrase of yours.<br /><br />///<br />There also appear to be enough industry supported bloggers doing just that.///<br /><br />What about the likes of Professor Barry Brook, head of climate at Adelaide University, who out of frustration with how slow we were moving to alternative technologies went on a huge quest to investigate energy systems and came up with the answer that renewables just can't do the job?<br /><br />http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/<br /><br />He has embraced Nuclear power with passion because it is the only reliable, cheap, baseload power source that could run the world for millions of years.<br /><br />EG: Gen4 reactors that burn nuclear waste could run the world for 500 years JUST on today's nuclear 'waste' alone. It would solve the nuclear waste problem, solve climate change and peak oil, and give us the time to explore other options like those super-batteries that renewables would need.<br /><br />He's not against renewables, and draws up scenarios where they will unfold 40 fold over the next few decades to make up about 15% of world energy by 2060. But nuclear power 'only' has to increase 20 fold to hit about 75% of the world market for energy, and this can be done when GenIV reactors like GE's S-PRISM (in approval stages and about to be built) are eventually commercialised and modularised and whacked up on the assembly line.<br /><br />Instead of being individual hand built projects a bit like a Rolls Royce, nukes would then be more like assembly-line factory built Hyundai's, except with the parts trucked to site and clipped together like oversized lego.<br /><br />So, in short, when committed environmentalists like Barry Brook are poking holes in renewables, surely it's time to stop 'hoping for the best' with this strategy and set up a peer-reviewed mechanism by which energy claims can be scientifically tested, and cut the ideology out of it?SPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467929366702367892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263129089232513980.post-70422869723227683272011-03-20T16:13:56.760+11:002011-03-20T16:13:56.760+11:00Dave - I'm not sure where that latest comment ...Dave - I'm not sure where that latest comment of yours went - you should probably keep replying on the original thread.<br /><br />I could imagine Professor Brook was an example of SP was referring to - there is something extremely dodgy about BNC - it reads like a PR organ of the nuclear industry.<br /><br />Anyway - its too expensive as well as too dangerous - stopping flogging the dead (and radioactive) horse...Big Gavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.com