hi Ed.
sorry we didn't get together last time you were in OZ.

hey Anne, Ed is the solar whiz i mentioned who could advise on any
dramas with your solar set-up.

have stashed some handy info here:
Nuclear Australia
http://polanimal.it.net.au/viewtopic.php?
t=4551&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

RE Ed on 'Patrick Moore'

DavidHawker - Location: Canberra
[QUOTE]
"One of the co-founders of Greenpeace has welcomed Australia's
nuclear industry inquiry.

Patrick Moore is one of the world's highest-profile converts to
nuclear energy, which he believes is the cleanest and safest
replacement for fossil fuels."
[/QUOTE]

hoppy
Location: 36 The Harbour bridge
[QUOTE]
this Patrick Moore? >>>

Patrick Moore is a Big Fat Liar

Patrick Moore of Greenspirit believes Clear Cutting Ancient
Rainforests are the Answer. He writes LIES about ecology,
environment, sustainability, forests, forestry, environmentalism.
Patrick Moore is an Industry sell-out.

http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/

top 10 lies told by Patrick Moore
http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/liar.html

top 10 things Patrick Moore does not want you to know:
http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/facts.html
_________________
The Earth is flat, pigs can fly, and nuclear power is safe.
[/QUOTE]
http://polanimal.it.net.au/viewtopic.php?
t=4551&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

so far i've found the economic argument against nukes the most
potent, so here's a repost of mine from a greens forum with facts &
figures on subsidies and related issues:

just in case a pro-nuker starts mumbling about nuke power being cheap
[repost] >>>

the american experience
http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/waste/waste-2.cfm#_1_2
http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/waste/waste-2.cfm#_1_8
http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/waste/waste-2.cfm#_1_9
http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/waste/waste-2.cfm#_1_17
via
http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/waste/waste-2.cfm

then regarding cost factors;
STATEMENT BY JILL LANCELOT
ON SUBSIDIES FOR NUCLEAR POWER IN CURRENT ENERGY PROPOSALS
http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/PressReleases/2001/5-24-
01LANCELOTNUCLEAR.htm

The Economic Costs of the Canadian Nuclear Industry
http://www.ccnr.org/sunset1.html
"Economic Benefits" of the Nuclear Industry and AECL Subsidies
http://www.ccnr.org/sunset1.html#2.

and if they claim it's clean, there's some correcting info here [2nd
page] >>>

Nuclear Now! How clean, green atomic energy can stop global
http://www.climatechange.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?
t=47&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
http://www.climatechange.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?
t=47&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20


on energy in general
http://www.climatechange.com.au/forum/viewforum.php?
f=3&sid=da18563c752bcc69ec64e6f21eee8f5f


I like my Globe well done, thank you.
http://polanimal.it.net.au/viewtopic.php?t=4696



--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., e haf
<thinksolar@y...> wrote:
>
> Dear Benny ,
> Due to a glitch on my yahoo page, i can't reply to the rest of
your list, but would love to. Am now @ a public computer, so am doing
so here.
>
> There is a concerted effort for false (or in the case of Monbiot,
mislead, to give him the benefit of the doubt) environmentalists to
be pushing nukes, it seems to be happening at once all over the
world. The most egregious is Patrick Moore, a former Greenpeacer who
is now a corporate shill. The slicker ones, like Monbiot, are
deceiving lots of well meaning folks by pretending(?) to be pro
renewable. The big lie is ignoring the considerable fossil inputs to
the nuclear fuel cycle. Conservation reduces carbon 8 - 10 times as
much per dollar spent as nukes, not to mention solar and wind. Below
is my letter that was finally published in a local paper.
> To this i would only add that i am reading "Confessions of an
Economic Hitman" by John Perkins. One of the main strategies used by
American empire builders is saddling 3d world countries with huge
debt to build unnecessary and destructive electricity grid and other
industrial infrastructure. Nuclear power, by sucking up available
money, kills the funding available for the extensive renwable energy
development that is so urgently needed. The actual energy derived
from nuclear is minimal, but the profits are huge for
these "environmental hit men"
> ed
>
> The only thing 'green' about nuclear power is the cost
>
> By Ed Haffmans
> Touting nuclear power (New Green?" May 19) as an alternative to
global warming and oil is shortsighted, greed-driven and wrong. When
the fossil fuel consumption of the nuclear fuel cycle, including
mining, refining, transport, plant construction, shielding, waste
disposal, terrorism protection, and capacity factor over the life of
the plant are considered, nuclear is a marginal net energy source and
substantial greenhouse contributor. The only "green," apart from the
glow when things go terribly wrong, is the money lining the pockets
of former Greenpeace sell-out Patrick Moore and his ilk.
> Pseudoenvironmentalist Moore, through his "Greenspirit Strategies
Ltd.," is a paid corporate shill for a host of big-business anti-
environment causes.
> In the long run, a rethinking of our wasteful lifestyles and
various forms of solar energy, which the United States receives more
of in just one hour than our entire annual energy consumption, are
our only options. Fossil fuels are merely stored solar energy.
Uranium is also limited.
> Any system that lives on savings while discarding income is
doomed to extinction.
> Solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal, tidal power, and radically
improved efficiency remain trivial because our rulers prefer oil
wars, nukes and corrupt cronies. Nuclear power has been subsidized to
the tune of $150 billion since its inception, 30 times that of all
renewables combined. It gets a free ride on insurance that would not
be available on the free market. Yet the last nuclear plant built in
the United States took 23 years to build and cost $8 billion. For
that sum, 1KW grid tied to photovoltaic solar electric systems could
be installed on nearly a million American homes, or 8,000 one-
megawatt wind turbines could be built way more quickly. Money wasted
on nuclear power is money not spent on safe, clean and truly carbon-
free alternatives. Imagine if the $300 billion wasted so far on the
Iraq oil war could have been spent on conservation and renewables.
> Some European countries are getting 20 percent of their
electricity from wind (Denmark), subsidizing biodiesel (Germany),
requiring solar water heat on new construction (Spain), and
outstripping us in all renewables. PV panels are terrorism proof,
replace the energy of manufacture in 6-12 months of use, and last
indefinitely.
> It's time to replace the corrupt politicians who are shoving
nukes and $3 gas down our throats with more folks like U.S. Rep.
Maurice Hinchey and U.S. Senate candidate Jonathan Tasini, who back
an Apollo-type program for homegrown terrorism-proof energy
independence. And if Demublicans and Republicrats can't do it, maybe
it's time to give the Green Party a chance.
> Ed Haffmans lives in Accord.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] [input]
[input] [input] DeleteReplyForwardMove...
> Previous | Next | Back to Messages Save Message Text | Full
Headers
> Check MailCompose TG: UI: SFI: SFV: --
> var url1
= "http://us.f387.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Search?
Find=1&B=1_p=bottom"; [input] [input] Search
MailSearch the Web
> Move Options
> [New Folder]
> Inbox
> l.w. house
> miscellaneous
> political rants
> rainbow
> renewable energy
>
> Forward Options
> As Inline Text
> As Attachment
>
> Reply Options
> Reply To Sender
> Reply To Everyone
>
> function composeClickHandler(loc) { try{ if(
parent.showCompose ) parent.showCompose(); else window.location =
loc; } catch(error){ window.location = loc; } } Mail
Shortcuts
> Check Mail Ctrl++C
> Compose Ctrl++P
>
> Folders Ctrl++F
> Advanced Search Ctrl++S
>
> Options
> Help Ctrl++H
>
>
> Address Book Shortcuts
> Add Contact
> Add Category
> Add List
>
> View Contacts
> View Lists
>
> Quickbuilder
> Import Contacts
> Synchronize
>
> Addresses Options
> Addresses Help
>
>
> Calendar Shortcuts
> Add Event
> Add Task
> Add Birthday
>
> Day
> Week
> Month
> Year
>
> Event List
> Reminders
> Tasks
>
> Sharing
> Synchronize
>
> Calendar Options
> Calendar Help
>
>
> Notepad Shortcuts
> Add Note
> Add Folder
>
> View Notes
>
> Notepad Options
> Notepad Help
>
>
> Advanced Search
> Advanced Search
>
> if(typeof Search_Click_top != 'undefined' & typeof
Search_Click_bottom != 'undefined') { var oSearchTop =
MenuButton
('searchmail0',Search_Click_top,'searchmenu',SearchMenu_Click);
var oSearchBottom = MenuButton
('searchmail1',Search_Click_bottom,'searchmenu',SearchMenu_Click); }

> var ADFadids = "2378664,1052425"; function ADFlaunch() {var w;
var
l="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hctjgqe/M=224039.2020109.3495275.1958
505/D=mail/S=150500004:FOOT2/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1150405506/A=1052425/R=0/id=a
dfeedback/SIG=12it695us/*http://surveys.yahoo.com/user_ad_feedback?
source=150500004:FOOT2.q28=mail.q26="+ADFadids; w=window.open
(l,"AdFeedbackWin","toolbar=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable,location=no,he
ight=400,width=640"); }
> Copyright © 1994-2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of
Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Guidelines - Ad Feedback
> NOTICE: We collect personal information on this site.
> To learn more about how we use your information, see our Privacy
Policy if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d
['ijKoFUSOxLs-']='&U=1299ircot%2fN%3dijKoFUSOxLs-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%
3dFSRVY%2fB%3d-1'; if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object
(); window.yzq_d['dzKoFUSOxLs-']='&U=13alq3ocj%2fN%3ddzKoFUSOxLs-%2fC%
3d224039.2020109.3495275.1958505%2fD%3dFOOT2%2fB%3d1052425'; if
(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d
['eDKoFUSOxLs-']='&U=126agskp3%2fN%3deDKoFUSOxLs-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dRS%
2fB%3d-1'; if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['eTKoFUSOxLs-']='&U=127brkjls%2fN%3deTKoFUSOxLs-%2fC%3d-
1%2fD%3dRS2%2fB%3d-1';
> if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d
['gzKoFUSOxLs-']='&U=1287fcdir%2fN%3dgzKoFUSOxLs-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dMSMS%
2fB%3d-1'; if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['fjKoFUSOxLs-']='&U=127g3f4vd%2fN%3dfjKoFUSOxLs-%2fC%3d-
2%2fD%3dSW5%2fB%3d-2'; if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new
Object(); window.yzq_d['fzKoFUSOxLs-']='&U=1276fupqa%2fN%
3dfzKoFUSOxLs-%2fC%3d-2%2fD%3dSW6%2fB%3d-2'; if
(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d
['gzKoFUSOxLs-']='&U=1287fcdir%2fN%3dgzKoFUSOxLs-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dMSMS%
2fB%3d-1'; var oReplyTop = MenuButton
('replytop',Reply_Click,'replymenu',ReplyMenu_Click); var
oReplyBottom = MenuButton
('replybottom',Reply_Click,'replymenu',ReplyMenu_Click); var
oForwardTop = MenuButton
('forwardtop',Forward_Click,'forwardmenu',ForwardMenu_Click); var
oForwardBottom = MenuButton
('forwardbottom',Forward_Click,'forwardmenu',ForwardMenu_Click);
var oMoveTop =
> MenuButton
('movetop',Move_Click,'movemenu',DestinationFolder_Click); var
oMoveBottom = MenuButton
('movebottom',Move_Click,'movemenu',DestinationFolder_Click); if
(window.yzq_p==null)document.write(""); if(window.yzq_p)yzq_p
('P=ZlulodG_VnS9WMQDRJGq6AC7xpfIEkSRr2IAAO6t&T=13pb7ohom%2fX%
3d1150398306%2fE%3d150500004%2fR%3dmail%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d1.1%2fW%3dJ%2fY%
3dYAHOO%2fF%3d857778043%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d547DBFD1'); if(window.yzq_s)
yzq_s();
>
> benny zable <bennyzable@h...> wrote: TOMORROW'S FORECAST
> A few more nukes! Environmentalists need to face the fact that
nuclear power is less dangerous than fossil-fired global warming.
> By George Monbiot, George Monbiot writes an environmental column
for the Guardian of London (www.monbiot.com). His book "Heat: How to
Stop the Planet Burning" will be published in Britain in October.
> June 11, 2006
>
> WHEN I TELL my "green" friends that I am rethinking nuclear
power, they respond with outrage. I am an environmentalist, and, to a
large extent, the green movements in the developed world arose from
public concern about atomic energy.
>
> For about 30 years we have seen nuclear power as dangerous, its
radioactive wastes as unmanageable, the industry as incompetent and
untrustworthy. In the environmental camp, any softening of this
opposition is seen as a betrayal.
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> dcmaxversion = 9 dcminversion = 5 Do On Error Resume
Next plugin = (IsObject(CreateObject
("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash." & dcmaxversion & ""))) If plugin =
true Then Exit Do dcmaxversion = dcmaxversion - 1 Loop While
dcmaxversion >= dcminversion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> width="300" height="250" border="0" alt="">
> But climate change and falling energy reserves demand that we
reopen the question. The nuclear industry now claims that nuclear
power is the most reliable answer to the global warming caused by the
overuse of fossil fuels. It argues that new technologies make it safe
and cheap.
>
> I've spent the last year searching for a way to cut carbon
emissions by 90%, which is necessary to prevent runaway global
warming. One of the hardest problems is how to generate enough
electricity. My sympathies lie with renewable power. Alongside a
massive energy-efficiency program, it plainly provides part of the
answer. But it cannot supply all of our electricity needs. The rest
must come from somewhere, and to dismiss nuclear power without
considering what the alternatives involve would be irresponsible.
>
> I still detest the nuclear >industry and its efforts to hoodwink
the public about its costs, its dangers and its record. But I've
reluctantly concluded that some of its arguments have merit.
>
> It is true, for example, that a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl
is highly unlikely to happen again because no new power station will
be built without a containment vessel, which prevents most radiation
from escaping in an accident. But the mining, processing and use of
uranium will continue to be accompanied — as they always have been —
by leaks into the environment.
>
> It now looks as though radioactive waste can be stored safely. The
Finnish authority responsible for nuclear waste disposal has
developed a method that looks foolproof. The problem is that it is
expensive, and the nuclear industry has a long record of cutting
corners. One British company was caught throwing nuclear waste into
open shafts it had >dug above crumbling coastal cliffs. Another
admitted that it had been keeping plutonium in uncovered ponds for
more than 30 years. Workers at the U.S. Geological Survey, which is
responsible for testing the Yucca Mountain waste repository in
Nevada, falsified the rates of water percolation, apparently to make
the site seem safer than it is.
>
> After reading reams of conflicting data, I now also believe that
global supplies of uranium are not the limiting factor many feared.
On the other hand, the threat of nuclear terrorism can never be
wholly dismissed, and the more fissile materials that are extracted
and refined, the more opportunities there will be for people to
obtain them. But although the radiation released by accidents or
terrorists could kill hundreds or perhaps thousands of people,
climate change caused by burning fossil fuels threatens hundreds of
millions.
>
> Though >nuclear power is plainly less dangerous than climate
change, I would still like to avoid building new plants if possible.
But the real danger is this: If we oppose nuclear power without
demonstrating that there are viable alternatives, we become, in
effect, lobbyists for the coal industry. In Eurasia, there are still
abundant supplies of natural gas, but in North America, gas
production has already peaked and is in long-term decline. Already,
coal supplies 32% of U.S. electricity, while natural gas supplies 24%
and nuclear power 10%. As 90% of remaining U.S. fossil energy
reserves take the form of coal, gas generators are likely to be
replaced by coal plants. The same applies to aging nuclear
generators, if they are not replaced by new ones.
>
> If you believe that burning coal sounds more benign than nuclear
power, I invite you to turn on your computer and search for images of
the >"mountaintop removal" being carried out by coal-mining companies
in the Appalachians. It looks as if a nuclear disaster already has
happened. The forests have been flattened, the hilltops blown off,
the valleys filled with sterile rubble. Coal is also the worst of all
fuels as far as climate change is concerned. It contains 40% more
carbon per unit of energy than gas.
>
> But if fossil fuels and nuclear power are bad choices, could 90% of
the electricity in the United States be generated by greener means?
There is no doubt that, if it could be harnessed, the U.S. has enough
ambient energy to provide all the electricity it now uses. Amory
Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute points out that the wind in a
few counties in the Dakotas is, in theory, sufficient to supply the
entire nation with electricity. Though no one is suggesting that all
U.S. energy should be drawn from one >source, the development of
cheap, high-voltage direct current, or DC, lines of the kind now used
in Brazil, Sweden and Australia would permit even the most remote
sources to be exploited. The problem with transporting power has been
that the electricity load carried by traditional alternating current,
or AC, systems declines as the distance increases. But DC systems
don't suffer such "line losses." In principle, DC lines could open up
wind and wave power across the
> entire U.S. continental shelf, and solar electricity throughout
its deserts.
>
> What about the cost? Although estimates vary widely, electricity
from large-scale wind farms appears to be cheaper than electricity
from either nuclear power or coal, and its costs are falling fast.
Even solar thermal electricity, a more expensive technology than
wind, is now cost-effective in some places. A report published last
year showed >that during times of peak demand in Southern California,
the cost of electricity produced by solar thermal plants is roughly
equal to the wholesale price of conventional power. Peak demand in
sunny places, driven by air-conditioning, coincides with maximum
solar output.
>
> The problem with alternative energies is that the coincidence of
demand and supply is by no means guaranteed. Power companies can fire
up their standby coal plant when demand rises, but they can't turn on
the wind or ask the sun to shine. This problem can be partly overcome
by using long-distance DC cables: When there's a flat calm in New
York, there could be a gale blowing in Chicago. The wider the net
from which electricity can be drawn, the more reliable ambient power
becomes. But beyond a certain point — perhaps 50% or so of total
supply — power from intermittent sources cannot be guaranteed. Part
of the >remainder could be supplied by burning biomass such as straw
or wood. But farm waste is limited, and mass planting of fuel crops
has implications for water tables and the global food supply.
>
> So, with gas growing scarcer, where do Americans find the rest of
their power? It seems to me that the U.S. has only two choices:
either to build a new generation of nuclear plants or to find a
genuinely acceptable, nonpolluting means of mining and burning coal.
>
> Such a means might exist, if underground coal gasification fulfills
its early promise. In principle, you can partly combust underground
coal seams, capture the gas they produce and scrub the pollutants
from it, producing either methane or hydrogen. The methane can be
burned in power stations and the carbon dioxide in their exhausts
extracted and buried, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 90%.
The hydrogen could be piped >to people's homes and used in mini-
generators to provide both electricity and heat. But unless great
care is taken, underground combustion could contaminate supplies of
groundwater.
>
> Picking "clean coal" or nuclear power is not a choice I would like
to make. But if there is one thing I have learned in studying our
energy systems, it is that there are no painless solutions.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>