- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 5 months ago by .
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Have just watched part of an interview on ABC.
One on One, will be played again Sunday evening.
This just reinforced why I am anti Nuclear any thing.
I feel there is just too much risk with using it.
Plus how to cope with the residue, my mind boggles!
Hi Caddie, what I find curious about nuclear technology is does it really have a lower carbon footprint? From Cradle to Grave and Beyond (remember nuclear waste has to be transported, reprocessed and stored for thousands of years) the embedded energy to use and contain it is enormous.
Add of course the horrors of radiation and meltdowns, let alone weapons, and you can stick it up your jumper.
I believe that when there is a major meltdown the damage is horrendous and it is not a risk I want to take.
Coal is pretty bad too
Solar thermal seems the logical way to go
I would like to know more about tidal technology.
That should be a consistent form of energy.
I understand there is some development going on here in WA but there does not seem to be much info!
Only downside I can see would be moving parts and rust .
Safe location that didn’t interfere with ships would be required too
The solution will be firstly a reduction in demand
then a combination of a few renewable sources.
Its going to be hard when we have so much cheap coal and states rely on it revenue for their survival.
Add the inevitable death of the carbon tax making it even more viable and the alternative solutions less viable.