This really ****s me!

[fLIP]

I found it.

Take a look, its called the Tesla Roadster.

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php

 

[fLIP]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bUPIEhONii8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bUPIEhONii8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

[The Gronk]

[quote author=The Gronk]

The thing is, even if it doesn't exist, we are still better off acting than not acting. Developing cheap and clean ways of producing energy and water cant be a bad idea surely.

Agree with that. This is one of the main reason I am backing the liberals nuclear future for Australia.

Also, Honda have had a working Hydrogen engine for years but we won't see it in practical use until all the oil is gone I'm afraid. There is just too much money being made from fossil fuel unfortunatly.

Lotus also developed an electric engine capable of performance of that of a Farrari with very good milage. I can't think of the name of that car right now but I have seen it in use. Very, very nice.

[/quote]


Is nuclear power cheap or clean? Methinks not. In our country with as many resources as ours there are numerous other ways of providing clean energy that don't involve creating waste that is toxic for 240000 years.

 

[Matabele]

Yeah, but the uranium comes from the NT - so a smart government would put the reactors up there too, create a Chernobyl and fix the NT child abuse problem quickly and cheaply.

 

[Nutzcraw]

[quote author=Nutzcraw]
I dunno, maybe just after you did??

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[/quote]

*boom tish*

Got him, yes he's gone.

 

[The Gronk]

Yeah, but the uranium comes from the NT - so a smart government would put the reactors up there too, create a Chernobyl and fix the NT child abuse problem quickly and cheaply.

Elect this man to parliament immediately!!!

 

[Canteen Worker]

Australia has Natural Gas reserves that could power the country and many others for 100s of years. I am sure that technology could be quickly developed.

 

[fLIP]

Is nuclear power cheap or clean? Methinks not. In our country with as many resources as ours there are numerous other ways of providing clean energy that don't involve creating waste that is toxic for 240000 years.

Would you like to suggest something than gronk? Your problem was green house gases and that is not a problem with Nuclear energy.

If the nuclear waste is stored correctly than you will not have a problem. It will not take us 240000 years to figure out a way to neutralise the wastes toxicity.

Agreed, that if things go wrong in a nuclear plant that the outcome can be very undesirable but when treated proporly this form of energy posses no threat.

Solar power is not viable. Way too much space and cost. Wind power is also far to inefficient.

The immediate quick fix to the world's so called imminent destruction by gloabl warming is nuclear energy. Like it or loath it.

As for Chernobyl, the consequences of human error can be vast but until you do reaserch into how safe nuclear energy actually is than you can't grasp how bad the human error was in this instance.

I'm sure Australia can handle the situations better than a collapsing communist Russia.

 

[The Gronk]

[quote author=The Gronk]

Is nuclear power cheap or clean? Methinks not. In our country with as many resources as ours there are numerous other ways of providing clean energy that don't involve creating waste that is toxic for 240000 years.

Would you like to suggest something than gronk? Your problem was green house gases and that is not a problem with Nuclear energy.

If the nuclear waste is stored correctly than you will not have a problem. It will not take us 240000 years to figure out a way to neutralise the wastes toxicity.

Agreed, that if things go wrong in a nuclear plant that the outcome can be very undesirable but when treated proporly this form of energy posses no threat.

Solar power is not viable. Way too much space and cost. Wind power is also far to inefficient.

The immediate quick fix to the world's so called imminent destruction by gloabl warming is nuclear energy. Like it or loath it.

As for Chernobyl, the consequences of human error can be vast but until you do reaserch into how safe nuclear energy actually is than you can't grasp how bad the human error was in this instance.

I'm sure Australia can handle the situations better than a collapsing communist Russia.

[/quote]

Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, solar thermal , hydro power, gas turbines, clean coal, the hydrogen economy. Sure, none are perfect yet, but they are all very quickly developing.

Another problem I have with nuclear is that even if we started building today, it would take over 10 years to build anything, and after that several more years to make enough energy to pay for the energy it took to build the massive structures that are needed for safety.

Also, call me skeptical, but I think one of the reasons for Howard trying to push nuclear is to try to open up wounds in the ALP. Again it is more about politics than solutions. For example, he waited until the day of the ALP national conference to announce that he wanted nuclear power, just to try to upset the apple cart as much as possible.

Nuclear power may be the best solution for other countries but I just dont think it is for us.

 

[fLIP]

We only contribute something like 2% of the green house gases for the entire world.

So, in essence the damage we are doing is very minor (when compared to the US/mexico ect).

All the options you say are great ideas (except clean coal). I'd like for the world to collaborate and come up with some sort of feasible alternate energy source. Most of those listed just don't provide the amount of energy needed for the entire country.

BTW gronk... your a skeptic

 

[fLIP]

Also, a strange fact I heard today.

Running the average plasma screen for 3 hours produces the same amount of co2 as it does to take a 1200km trip in the family car.

 

[Fluffy]

flip i would be extremely doubtful on that, plasma's run at about 350 watts, so in 3 hours thats only 1kwh of energy, you use more in just lighting a house most days.

As for energy production the Germans have a system where you get paid to put energy back into the system if you produce more than you use. So their solar market has gone through the roof, and there is plenty of room. What it has effectivly done is got the citizens to fork out the capital investment for a solar powered industry.

Why cant we do that here?

My only thoughts are the politics involved and who has mates where.

Also there is a wave generator sitting off the coast of Port Kembla. It has been there for over 12 months now and if profitable. Essentially it works like the Kiama blow hole to produce high velocity air with each wave. 2 way turbines are in the stack and hence energy is prodced on both the upward and downward part of the wave.

We have plenty of ocean around.

Finally there is a coal power plant in SE queensland that ****s on most others in terms of its enviro impact. The article i read was early this year but its something enormous like 30% less harmful. On top of that they have planted 60,000 trees to help offset emisions. All water is stored on site etc etc.

 

[Fluffy]

wont let me edit

anyhow here is the website for the wave power generator http://www.oceanlinx.com/

And yes it is a technoilogy i am interested in