ETS | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

ETS

Panthera tigris FC said:
If we need to reduce emissions in the short term than we need energy generating systems that can achieve this. Of the technologies currently available it is highly unlikely that the truly sustainable ones (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal etc.) could replace fossil fuels as they currently stand. Nuclear power might be able to bridge the gap, but it is a massive economic investment for a short-term fix. I am not sure what the solution actually is.

Nuclear is still a huge risk with radioactivity.
 
I still don't understand why solar energy is taken as a dud considering we live in a hot dry land.
 
TigerForce said:
I still don't understand why solar energy is taken as a dud considering we live in a hot dry land.

I'm no expert, but I understood the cost and composition of the panels traditionally used made the net benefit at the end of the panels life questionable

New thermal technologies though (i.e. the trial plant in Mildura which is under threat right now due to the GFS) are supposed to make it much more viable :clap
 
Tiger74 said:
I'm no expert, but I understood the cost and composition of the panels traditionally used made the net benefit at the end of the panels life questionable

New thermal technologies though (i.e. the trial plant in Mildura which is under threat right now due to the GFS) are supposed to make it much more viable :clap

Yes, my understanding is that for solar to become a viable alternative it will require the development of new technology.
 
Panthera tigris FC said:
Yes, my understanding is that for solar to become a viable alternative it will require the development of new technology.
So basically it is not a viable alternative.
 
Giardiasis said:
No it isn't.

Why? What about Chernobyl?

Panthera tigris FC said:
Yes, my understanding is that for solar to become a viable alternative it will require the development of new technology.

We should have enough common sense to do that. If so, hopefully it doesn't become another case of an Aussie invention getting rejected here and heading overseas.
 
TigerForce said:
Why? What about Chernobyl?
A common thought process from ignoramuses. You really think an Australian nuclear power plant would operate under the same safety practices and procedures as a 1980's soviet reactor?
 
Giardiasis said:
A common thought process from ignoramuses. You really think an Australian nuclear power plant would operate under the same safety practices and procedures as a 1980's soviet reactor?

Agree that nuclear is the only long-term option. Technology has come an awful long way since Chernobyl and nuclear is by far the cleanest energy that can also deliver the volume required. I find the Greens opposition to even looking at it as a flaw in their whole position on the environment.
 
Total Tiger said:
Agree that nuclear is the only long-term option. Technology has come an awful long way since Chernobyl and nuclear is by far the cleanest energy that can also deliver the volume required. I find the Greens opposition to even looking at it as a flaw in their whole position on the environment.

Spot on.
The question that should be asked is "how many people will die from the global warming effects of coal fired power stations if we don't act soon?"
And "how many would die from an accident in a well engineered, well located and managed nuclear power station?"
 
Giardiasis said:
A common thought process from ignoramuses. You really think an Australian nuclear power plant would operate under the same safety practices and procedures as a 1980's soviet reactor?

With the type of dopey governments we have here, anything could happen.
 
Nuclear isn't the best of long term options, mainly because at current reactor numbers, we only have enough of the stuff confirmed for 80 years.

Granted new finds will open this up, but new reactors are coming online at an increasing rate
 
Tiger74 said:
Nuclear isn't the best of long term options, mainly because at current reactor numbers, we only have enough of the stuff confirmed for 80 years.

Granted new finds will open this up, but new reactors are coming online at an increasing rate

Yep, that is what I was alluding to in my earlier post (and 80 years is not the most conservative estimate that I have read). Nuclear may work as a short term stop-gap, but it is not the long term solution.
 
Panthera tigris FC said:
Human activity through population growth can impact atmospheric CO2 levels primarily through mass deforestation. Less autotrophs (primarily photosynthetic organisms) and more heterotrophs (net CO2 emitters) must lead to some increase in atmospheric CO2. This is, of course, unless other autotrophic populations (ie phytoplankton, cyanobacteria etc) compensate for both the loss of plants (to take up CO2) and increase in hetertrophic populations (that continue to emit CO2).
I gather this is the long, jargon- laden version of saying "yes, you are right, evo" ;D
 
evo said:
I gather this is the long, jargon- laden version of saying "yes, you are right, evo" ;D

Something like that ;D.

Although what I didn't say in that spiel was that adding extra carbon to the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels is a far bigger contributor to the problem. The carbon cycle deals with non-sequestered carbon sources. By extracting and burning those fossil fuels we are liberating a lot of carbon that has been out of the atmosphere for a very long time.
 
I always wanted to hear some comments from people who live in the inner west (Newport, Yarraville, Williamstown) if the gas polluted air affects their daily lives.
 
For Australia

The answer is Geo-thermal

Out west - outback country a geo-thermal plant has the capacity to provide most of Australia's base load requirements.

Problem is the Government claims it would be too far from our Grid and thus would cost millions to connect (because of booster station requirements or something like that!)

I'm not that old but I do remember reading in my history lessons the doomsayers of the time saying the Snowy Mountains Electricity Scheme was too far away from Sydney to help with its base load requirements. Well they were right?

We don't need coal stations nor nuclear nor solar or wind (belch - oh excuse me! bad wind)

Geo thermal will do the trick for many many hundreds of years..........

Footnote - history has shown the ONLY WAY to get capitalists (i.e. Business Owners) to change their processes of production and distribution is by making what they currently do more costly - they soon find ways to do it better and thus cease their old methods to reduce their costs.

If left to market forces - they simply do not change

Hence the ETS is a solution to changing the way Australian Businesses do operate.