Just stumbled across your blog and was instantly amazed with all the useful information that is on it. . I will keep it in mind, thanks for sharing the information, looking forward for more posts. seo content services

Awesome post but very tragic story, lets hope things improve for them.

James

watch free movies online

I found this post to be very educational. Thank you for broadening my knowledge of this subject. No doubt its a great piece of writing as well. Thanks arabic names

This subject has interested me for quite some time. I have just started researching it on the Internet and found your post to be informative. Thanks all famous quotes

I found this post to be very educational. Thank you for broadening my knowledge of this subject. No doubt its a great piece of writing as well. Thanks

vFree Online Chat Rooms

There are so many different aspects when it comes to this topic. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge on this particular aspect. jewelry engraving supplies

Wow! I really appreciate the thought that you put into this article. This topic has been something I have been looking into for a few hours and your post is one of the best I have read. 8 ballz

I am exploring this topic for a report I have to write. You have good content and I would like to know if you have any other posts about this? voice coaching

Keith,

Try explaining the quiet nature of wind turbines to those in my area of the Southern Tablelands that can hear the damned things 35km away

They are much much louder than any other source of distant noise such as the Hume highway 12km away - and the sound at times sounds utterly revolting and terrifying - anything between a strange didgeridoo like sound and large worn out fan.

And most nights its the only thing I can hear - and night after night. To summarise it wind turbines equate to raping the environment in the name of the environment. If you believe in wind turbines and their noisy glory go stick them in your back yard.

A future of food farms, wind and solar is a bright future, whereas a future of coal and gas exploitation is a future sold off forever. - Spot on!

A nation that goes for gas rather than food and willingly poisons its precious water supply is simply stupid.

Gary, the gas company is guaranteed under the Petroleum and Gas Act 2004 to be able to gain access to the landholders property to carry out "authorised activities" (ie drilling for gas and all the rest of the associated infrastructure) within 50 days whether the landowner likes it or not.  If the landowner then refuses to let a gas company onto their land, they will be deemed to "hinder or resist" under s.805, and risk a $50,000 penalty.  So whats your point?

Hi Mark,

The links you sent re Germany were early press response to Germany's decision.  More recently the German Govt response is being articulated and it is quite clear that they think it is not only reflecting public concern (80% against nuclear) but also strategic in the switch to renewables.

eg see : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/28/nuclear-uk-renewable-energy

I guess we agree about the fossil fuel disaster, but not about the solution.

None of these solutions will be immediate and there are significant issues about grid design.  I argue that wind & solar are much quicker to implement than nuclear.  You see that in China (wind long ago became more important than nuclear & solar will do the same soon).

I agree that Germany is a good test case, especially because it is such an inferior place to drive solar.  If solar works in Germany it is a no brainer in Australia.

Some stats from Germany:

Germany’s  2011 mix : 17.7% nuclear, 24.6% lignite, 18.7% hard coal, 13.6% natural gas, 19.9% renewables, 4.2% heating oil, pumped hydro, others. The renewables were: 7.6% wind, 5.2% biomass, 3.1% hydro, 3.2% solar, 0.8% waste.

http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=8235

Germany’s proposed 2020 mix : 43% lignite, hard coal and gas, 57% renewables. The renewables would be: 34% wind (27% offshore, 7% onshore), 11% solar, 7% biomass, 3.9% hydro, 1.1 % other

So the plan for 2020 is for nuclear/coal/oil/gas to drop from 74.6% to 43%. I guess we'll see how they are tracking in the next year or so.  If they achieve this it will be remarkable.

In my opinion, just about everything you say in your last post is incorrect or misleading (e.g. it might be strictly true to describe the gas backup in Diesendorf's plan as 'limited', but it's also 'massive' - and I doubt it would be so popular once it's realised how much bushland would need to be consumed for biogas and hydro impoundment backup systems).

But there's no need to take my word for it.  There's a real world experiment going on right now that will determine the truth of the matter.  It's the one you mentioned, in Germany.  Have a look how that's turning out, e.g.

http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/834511-europe-rediscovers-coal

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/31/us-german-nuclear-carbon-idUST..., among many other straws in the, er, wind.

As Germany phases out nuclear power, it is phasing in more coal, gas and imported nuclear electricity.  Renewables are manifestly failing to pick up the slack, despite massive subsidies and popular and political support.  The German pudding isn't quite done yet, but the proof is already visible.

The choice is between (energy solutions involving) nuclear and (climate) disaster.

Mark,

I'm pretty sure that Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power results from the Chernobyl trauma coming back with the Fukushima tragedy.  Mark you can hypothesise, but real people don't want nuclear power for good reason.

People don't like the thought of being irradiated.  You might call it irrational but it is how people experience this, and no doubt why Australia isn't contemplating nuclear power.

If the choice was nuclear or disaster, then nuclear would need to be considered.  The reality is that there is no need for nuclear power, it is expensive and needs governments to back it as the commercial risks are too onerous.

Solar and wind can do the job.  It is just that the resistance from powerful lobbies is too great at the moment.  China will have 200GW wind by 2020 and probably around 100GW solar.  That is many times what Australia needs to become effectively fossil fuel free (with maybe limited gas boost).  Mark Diesendorf has done the hour by hour matching of demand with how wnid and solar can cope and it works now (with dramatic developments from solar on the way to make it even easier).

Of course it is a huge change, but it is quite doable and indeed it is being done at scale in several parts of the world.....

and it is very popular with the general population who understand how healthy it will be to get rid of fossil fuel usage (without embracing nuclear).

What rubbish re land access in Queensland. Section 805 of the Petroleum and Gas Act 2004 (P&G Act) relates to interference with authorised activities of a petroleum holder. Specifically it relates to obstruction defined in the Act as assault, hinder, resist and attempt or threaten to assault, hinder or resist. A petroleum holder can only claim obstruction if they have a valid land access agreement in place with the landholder.

Keith, you continue to miss my serious point, which is that if there have been no measurable health effects unequivocally arising from increased radioactivity, then the disruption was unnecessary.

And if (as peer-reviewed literature e.g. Trainer 2010 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510002004 indicates), renewables are and will not prove up to the task of powering civilisation, the consequent global effects will make those of any nuclear mishap pale into insignificance.

Mark,

It is easy to be glib about being exposed to radioactivity, but humans don't want the experience.  I'm not sure you understand how disruptive it was for the whole population to be exposed to significant levels of radioactivity for a prolonged period.  It wasn't a joke. The reason Australians aren't keen on nuclear power is that they don't want to have the possibility of such a problem. I agree with them, given we have much safer ways of generating low carbon emissions power.

The approach by the French to the Fukushima disaster (effectively planning to build a whole new layer of protection at each plant) indicates how seriously the community views nuclear power failures.

Of all power, sources when things go wrong only nuclear has the capacity to have global effects (apart of course from fossil fuel usage where even when things go right there are drastic global consequences).  To build a power source where who gets affected when things go wrong depends on which way the wind blows isn't deemed acceptable. 

George,

Tell any urban dweller about the noise problem from wind and they will laugh.

In terms of environmental impact, wind has to be at the low end compared with most human activities.

The enormous community support for wind power is because people realise it is clean, reliable and safe.

Why are the Chinese planning to build 1000GW of wind power by 2050 if it doesn't work?

In my opinion Wright seamlessly demonstrates the absurdity of energy policy in NSW.

Re Keith Williams

Wind power in the form of horizontal axis turbines is NOT safe or environmentally sound. See http://www.wind-watch.org/ if you wish to read more into this matter.

Keith, the critiques (which you apparently still haven't read) of the BZE and Diesendorf reports have never been responded to in any substantive way.  Accordingly it is the critiques, not the BZE/Diesendorf reports, that 'stand'.  The latter remain discredited, in my view.  But by all means let the reader read both, then decide.

So glad you escaped southern Germany before 'the whole environment became radioactive', Keith, otherwise you'd have ended up like all those millions of people who never made it out and ARE STILL LIVING THERE, dying horrible deaths from...oh wait.

No?

It's been over a quarter of a century now. Where is the mutation hotspot, the leukaemias, the cancers, the rotting vegetation?

Can you point to any undisputed evidence that the citizens of Munich experienced any health effects due to radiation, as opposed to health effects from being traumatised?

You said it yourself: "Frankly to have to live in an environment much "hotter" than anything I experienced... would freak me out." As the peer-reviewed literature overwhelmingly shows, it's the freaking out that does the health damage, not radiation.

Peter,

the reality is that in the history of nuclear power, large populated areas have become contaminated. I assume from your (lack of) response that it would be OK to contaminate the Sydney basin.  

I don't think this is OK, especially when there are safe solutions available in the form of wind and solar. You act as if the revolution and massive capacities being developed around the globe are not happening.

By 2020 China will have 200GW of wind power. Europe has massive renewables developments. Solar thermal installations are happening. 

The BZE & Diesendorf reports stand.

I'll let the readers of this column decide where the facts lie.

Keith Williams,

You didn't answer my questions.  I was pretty sure you wouldn't.

When someone suffers from nuclear phobia there is no point in trying to discuss it with them.  Their beliefs and response is irrational, just like anyone with any phobia, and just like a drug addict who denies he has a problem. 

If you want to reduce emissions from fossil fuels, you'd better challenge your beliefs because nuclear is the only realistic option for powering society with low emisisons.

Peter,

The facts that I sent you to are from Nature (the world's most prestgious science journal) and the US Government, so blame them for scaremongering if you like.  Thing is that the world is heading rapidly for catastrophe and most people are blissfully unaware of how serious it is.  I'm just doing what the Editorial in Nature suggested... pointing people to sources of the facts so they can see that this is a really nasty problem and it is self inflicted... and it can be addressed now, but time is rapidly running out.

Re nuclear issues.  Are you seriously suggesting that it would be OK for all of the Sydney region to experience a level of radioactive exposure that was sufficient to ban sale of all fresh vegetables, making drinking water radioactive, and generally significantly contaminate everyone as they go about their daily activities?  This happened in southern Germany (including Munich) after Chernobyl. This wasn't the disastrous contamination that made the immediate Chernobly area unihabitable (still), but it was a big deal for the people who experienced it.  Only by good luck is Tokyo not similarly affected now.

Do you seriously think this is OK?  I suggest that 99.9% of Australians (and indeed people everywhere) would disagree.

I've worked with radioactivity as a scientist and I treated radioactive materials with great respect.  Frankly to have to live in an environment much "hotter" than anything I experienced in my lab work would freak me out.

David Kearns asks why do those getting paid to host wind turbines never complain about wind turbine noise.

I answer his innocent question: because of confidentiality clauses that prohibit the wind turbine hosts from discussing with the public about how much they might be regretting wind turbines, such as noise and angry, sick neighbours.

Mairi McKenzie, the instigator of her local wind farm development, who made a submission to the recent Senate enquiry, took the initiative to warn politicians that wind developers MISINFORM potential hosts about the level of noise they create. 

Keith Williams,

I read your comments.  But give them no credence.  They are simply your beliefs.  They are based on your ideology.

Some people just love scaremongering.  They believe the stuff and then propogate it.  They are fanatics.  They are usually gullble types.

You are clearly scared stiff of nuclear power.  So why don't you educate yourself? (not with the usual anti-nuclear nonsense, but from authoritative sources).  Those who have a fear of flying can get over most of their fear by understanding that it is a low risk activity, safer than driving.  Similarly, nuclear is a lower risk source of electricity, per unit of electricity provided, than just about all other alternatives.  You could find that out if you wanted to.

Can you tell me how may people have died from radiation effects of Fukushima?  For comparison can you tell me how may people died as a result of the tsunami?  Can you tell me how many died from dam failures and oil fires as a result of the earthquake?  Can you tell me how may people died as a result of reduction in electricity supply?

If you cannot answer these questions, or avoid them, or you are upset by them, you should be able to recognise that you are suffering from nuclear phobia.

May-be if some-one could come up with a method for extracting royalties from the wind, the government might stop trying to kill the industry.

The CSG problem is the irresistable lure of a mountain of cash, which trumps everything else.

The renewable energy backlash comes because wind and solar are making massive headway elsewhere around the world and this is a potential threat to the CSG efforts.

While the fight is mostly about land use at the moment (and this is a valid issue), the real game is that there is pretty much no change in acceleration of greenhouse gas emissions with CSG vs coal.  CO2 & methane release are the problem.

Ian, I didn't say you make any denial. I said you are using a classical denialist response, which is when confronted by facts to act as if they aren't there and divert attention elsewhere in the hope that you discredit the facts.

This is a well established tea party tactic in the US and I gather denialist groups pay people around the world to seek to neutralise factual posts.

I am simply saying that your posts today have not addressed the issues raised, but instead have sought to neutralise my posts by obfuscation.

It isn't right, and as the Nature editorial asks scientists to do, this year I plan to do my small part by sticking with the facts and seeking to have them heard. The future of the world is at stake here.