Russell - public transport can do incredible things, it easy for our mindset to be locked in by the automobile propaganda we have all been subject to. Having lived in Perth the train line north and south can easily be ramped up. They are working on increasing densities there also by rerating the blocks.

Having worked on the planning for humanising the coast from Mandurah to Yanchep. I know the densities and height restrictions are sorted as is much of the coastal planning. Since the 1950 Perth has also left room for light rail to cover those some of those sprawling suburbs. The other cities in Australia have plans in place so I hope you enjoy discovering them.

Thankfully we don't need the approval of the "silent generation" or "baby boomers" to roll the Humanising of Cities out in every city in Australia. The time for consulting was twenty years ago, so sit back and enjoy the meticulous planning and reversal of damage to our culture that the automobile has done.

Here in case you didn't see it is a literal example illustrates how the issue of space is crucial;
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3402/3342003343_40b32098cd_o.png

Lets Humanise our Cites, embrace the planning being rolled out and change our mindset about how we travel;
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1BE9A8FAB3FDA95D

Paul - public transport can be incredibly horrible too. I used public transport to get to work for years until the train was so crowded that it was just a very nasty way to start your day - nasty enough for me to pay a lot of money to park in the city. I still see the news reports of trains so crowded people can't get on to them - and this when we're comparatively prosperous, so I don't see much hope of the train service ever being an option for civilised commuting.

Until recently I was helping my very elderly mother stay in her home, rather than go to a nursing home - lots of people are in this situation - it means going more or less everyday on your way to work and taking food and picking up/ taking washing etc. Try doing that on public transport, especially on a Sunday - I live near Fremantle, she lived in City Beach: not far from each other but it would take two hours by public transport, 20 minutes in the car (with all the stuff you need to take).

I would be very happy for my tax dollars to be spent on public transport - I would like to see light rail down scarborough Beach Road and maybe Cambridge St with higher density housing along the way. But we also need another bridge across the river between Freo and the CBD, as in the Stephenson plan.

Russell, public transport is undoubtedly less convenient for certain daily movement patterns, but in lieu of a miraculous new energy source many of us are probably going to have to learn to do without cars, just as most of our ancestors did as recently as 60 years ago. Yes, this will necessitate more thinking about where we live in relation to where we work, proximity to family members etc.

There is no guarantee of an intersection between what is convenient or desirable and what is practicable - your message implies that there is. To be blunt: peak oil and climate change don't care how inconvenient it is to you to pick up your mother's laundry.

Russell - understanding the concept of humanised cities is a lot to ask when first hearing about it. By no means have they dispensed with motor vehicles in countries where it is successful, but many trips by individuals are unnecessary and wasteful. The most obvious provision for light rail you can see close to you, is Marmion St - Fremantle to Booragoon has a corridor set aside for it.

Interestingly I am very familiar with the route you are talking about, not only that but have looked after my partners elderly father over a similar distance here in Melbourne. I can asure you, I would sooner do your run any day, I spend thirty minutes gridlocked and rarely drive over 35 kph during the whole run, like you public transport takes more time. Our issue is not in question, and shows why motor vehicles must still be part of our lives. There are others all over Perth metro area on the plans.

As for the bridge across the river, that maybe so, however if the number of trips in motor vehicles was reduced to a third, by use of public transport and if cycling was made easier it may not be needed as soon.

In Copenhagen, they have a cyclist commuter rate twelve months of the year that is over forty four percent, and it snows there. Have catered for the cyclist by putting in areas on trains and for parking storage in cities.

Our challenge here is bringing together the older and new systems. We have been made so motor vehicle dependant by large motor corporations influencing all our transport infrastructure it will take time to get to worlds best practice. It can be done, has been done and we now have fantastic models to copy, our roll out will be fast as a result.

The Netherlands has developed brilliant traffic infrastructure. As an illustration just watch this short video, it shows how smoothly a transport system can run with good design; http://youtu.be/ki-kUVaPLvc

The intersection Shane Warne had his altercation with the cyclist recently was similar. The incident would not be possible with the Dutch version.

Paul - here's how your proposed Marmion St rail would work: I would trudge to Marmion St (in the rain, today, or the sweltering heat of the last few days, carrying my briefcase and the other container my lunch is in) and wait for train. This would trundle along Marmion St to, as you say, Booragoon. Presumably there I change to a bus to take me to the ridiculous station in the middle of the freeway/Canning Bridge.

(Someone mentioned Jakarta - which is co-incidentally what I thought of last night as I passed that ridiculous station, because it was warm and sort of raining and there were people who were leaving that station and running, in between the cars, across the highway - so third world.)

So I get on a train at that station, packed in with other commuters, and end up in the city, where I get off and wait for a CAT bus to take me up to West Perth. Lovely. Much to be preferred to getting in the car, air-conditioning on, Classic FM on, and driving right to work - in less than half the time. And stopping at a shop if I want to pick up something.

I'm curious - why do think commuters wouldn't prefer motor bikes to public transport? quicker, less crowded, flexible, use almost no fuel .... At the moment motor scooters are too dangerous because of all the roaring car traffic, but if an oil crisis drastically reduced the number of cars, particularly, SUVs, motor bikes would be safer.

As for bikes! First, you still need infrastructure like the Stock Road Bridge to get people from South of the river to places like the ever-developing UWA - QE11 complex. Second, Perth can be very hot and very windy. Third the cycling infrastructure is as lousy as the public transport infrastructure. The puncture I got last Sunday has seen my bike go to the back of the garage again; eventually, hope will surface and I'll get it repaired, again. 'Till then the ever reliable car gets me to the beach each morning.

Russell - I might suggest you ride a Melbourne train or tram in peak hour and you might appreciate what you have in Perth. I have commuted on public transport in both cities and know where it is better. Having my family in Melville am familiar with your commute. As for the heat, it's one of the reasons I live here, but there are trade offs. Perth has great cycling infrastructure and I miss it.

No one thinks it is is inappropriate to use a motor bike, in fact that is why it would be better. Nothing changes though, our road infrastructure since the 1950s has followed one model. It has failed that country, and it is failing us. The utopian dream can be seen for what it is; http://youtu.be/1iepyjVthBM

The better model is in the Netherlands and the best city model is Copenhagen.

As for cycling and puncture repair, that is easy. It takes me five minutes to change a tube, on my mountain bike or Mango Sport RE; http://goo.gl/pGVSM
On both I use Schwabe tyres and haven't punctured since using them, touchwood; http://goo.gl/7DHdR

Paul, lines like "you might appreciate what you have" are never going to win anyone over!

Your link doesn't work for me, but if is to those nifty bikes that look like little cars, well, that's straight away more appealing - at least it looks like a car.

My bike is from your beloved Netherlands and I would never be so ambitious as to think of doing anything to the annoying thing - it has to go to the bike shop for repairs, despite puncture proof tyres and tubes, and strips of kevlar in between and some goo in the tubes etc etc Obviously you have never ridden on the path over the Stirling Bridge and down Tydeman Road. Shattered glass the whole way - the word maintenance is not in the Main Roads Department's dictionary.

We don't hate cars, we just realise that when an idea has had its day it's time to move on. EVs still take up room on roads and room to park; the laws of physics mean that individualised transport in massive cities in a world of 7 billion people (and counting) just doesn't scale. Obesity won't be tackled until people are less sedentary.

Throwing cheap insults around may make you feel better but it doesn't change the facts. Most people find it uncomfortable to contemplate change but that doesn't mean change can be avoided. Better to face the future than have it bite you on the bum while you're contemplating the past.

One more thing. You can get a hell of a lot of work done on the train (ear-defenders over headphones may look silly but it makes for a wonderful cone of silence). It might not be perfect but it's infinity-percent better than trying to transcribe / analyse data / bash out a paper while driving - because none of those things are possible while driving.

Maybe some of you people have enough time on your hands to enjoy the luxury of sitting in a traffic-jam listening to classic-FM, but for those of us with lots to do the train wins out every time.

Huh! You get a seat on your train?

It's often a close thing - but I know where there are usually a triad of regulars who like to hog 5 seats. Most people are put off by their sheer rudeness but my ear-defenders mean I can't hear their grumbling, and the necessity of getting my PhD written *in my spare time* means I couldn't care less whether they think half the train belongs to them.

Maybe if we didn't subsidise the fossil fuel industry so much, we could afford more / better trains.....

In 2010 Brazil produced close to 7 billion US Gallons of ethanol.

I think in Barrels of oil per day, so lets convert gallons to barrels by dividing that 7 billion gallons by 42 to get barrels.

I make that 166 million barrels of oil per year. That's impressive! But here's the reality pill none of us seem to want to take. The world burns 86 million barrels of oil A DAY!

Brazil's ethanol wouldn't quite run the *world* for 2 days.

Thing about fossil fuels is they represent millions / hundreds of millions of years' biological productivity in a concentrated form. What we're digging up and burning every year is the end result of millions of years' plant growth. No matter how much of the world's land / sea area and bioproductivity we co-opt, there's just no way that we can keep up, so biofuels at the very best represent only a stop-gap measure.

Fuels cells etc? With a world population set to be 50% larger before it stabilises, climate change, peak output and the need to conserve soil and water putting the screws on fossil fuel production, this is going to be an energy-hungry world.

Can the world continue to afford the resources to indulge those rugged individualists who'd rather crawl over broken glass than get in a train with their fellow humans?

Lorna J, as a physics teacher this may be worth keeping an eye on,
who knows time will tell; http://www.e-catworld.com/

There have always been skeptics of new concepts, it was over a year before the Wright Brothers had recognition in the press. We will soon know, if it is poor wiring or commercially cheap source of power.

I'm very sceptical. The original experiments were decades ago, and with motivation of "holy grail" levels of energy I'm sure that there's been no shortage of effort. I think that with the looming end of cheap fossil energy, the desire to believe that something's going to come and save us, is strong.

Lorna, deifying physics is the stuff of legends, it would be nice if it happened in our life time. I still will keep an eye on it, just in case. I'm very sceptical as well, due diligence is needed.

We've already got a cracker of a fusion reactor beaming free energy at us for the foreseeable future (well, until it eats us anyway). If only the fossil fuel fossils invested a fraction of what they spend propping up their industry on solar technologies...

Hi Lorna,
for the longest time I resisted the idea of nuclear power. But after reading Prof Ted Trainer's critiques of solar power, and now Barry Brooks, head of climate department at Adelaide Uni, I'm a fan of NEW, SAFE, GenIV nuclear power that will EAT all the old nuclear waste. Indeed, depending on assumptions the world's stockpile of waste is now worth $30 trillion dollars as it could run the world for the next 500 years in GenIV reactors like the IFR.

I LOVE the idea of solar energy, I really do. But the biggest problem is both the expense / unit of energy coupled with the impossibility of providing reliable, baseload power. It can't do it. It just can't, not at any price western civilisation is prepared to pay for energy. No wonder we keep burning coal! And every time Dr Mark Diesendorf debates Barry Brooks poor old Mark looks like an idealist looking for some facts.
http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/

I'd love to be that enthusiastic about nuclear - but I grew up in Britain in the 1980s. Faslane, Chernobyl, WIndscale, the jaw-dropping nightmare that is Dounreay's "hole in the ground", the mothballed reactors at Fairlie (to expensive to decomission properly), Greenham Common...

Maybe if I'd grown up in Australia with nothing scarier than Lucas Heights' famously washing-machine sized reactor anywhere nearby I'd feel differently. But my parents told me that in the 1950s when they started rolling out nuclear power in Britain, everyone was told that the electricity would be so cheap, they wouldn't bother metering it. Pie in the sky. No particular reason to believe the next gen will be different. Then there's Fukushima, terrorism, weapons-grade by=products etc. etc.

As for solar not providing baseload - I don't have the refs to hand but I have read convincing arguments that this is a fallacy popular with proponents of fossil / nuclear fuels. Maybe look up what's happening with solar furnaces. More investment in research could deliver real results.

Please no nukes. I was there. It's wasn't fun.

Eclipse, there is a trail of misinformation as tragic as the toxic outcomes littering the globe. Rather than quote where, how, why the waste issue is nothing short disastrous for life on earth, I will refer you to a french/german TV-channel ARTE, produced in 2009. It was broadcasted once on Oct. 20, 2009.

http://youtu.be/QEbjYr8rubA

I trust that your critical thinking will see the issues clearly.

As for the "new, safe,generation IV nuclear power", I have read extensively on the subject and understand the physics and engineering. All I can say is refer to the history of secrecy, misinformation and propaganda served to the gullible for over sixty years.

"Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
~ Richard Feynman - American physicist ~

I haven't watched your doco, but please don't tell me Helen Caldicott had anything to do with it? I won't watch anything by her given what a screeching anti-science conspiracy theory whack-job she's become. Her interviews with George Monbiot were excruciatingly embarrassing. She came across as whacky and uninformed as climate science deniers.

As for your claims on misinformation about GenIV's, are you saying the physics is wrong? Pull the other one. We have over 300 reactor year's experience with breeder reactors that says YES, uranium does breed up through the higher elements into plutonium etc and create more fuel as it goes to a certain critical point of fuel burn. The MAIN problem we have with nuclear waste is too little, not too much. If I could wave a magic wand and convert every coal fired power plant into a GenIV reactor we wouldn't have enough fuel. It will take time to breed up the grades of fuel we need from today's waste, possibly a few decades. Which is why today's Gen3.5 Chinese reactors like the AP1000 are such a good combination. They'll do the job as the GenIV reactors are deployed, and they'll supply the GenIV reactors will all the fuel we need.

As George Monbiot said, is our job to promote renewables or get off coal?

Nothing to do with Caldicott - just watch the video then come back and tell me you have faith in this industry being straight with us.

"Can the world continue to afford the resources to indulge those rugged individualists who'd rather crawl over broken glass than get in a train with their fellow humans? "

Lorna, we're talking about the future of civilisation, ie there won't be any, if people allow themselves to be treated worse than cattle and crammed into trains.

. Anyway, let's look at the total energy people use: have you flown off to any holidays in the last 20 years Lorna? Because I haven't. I'll admit to getting some of the house air-conditioned this summer, but that's adaption to climate change, the heat waves in Perth are getting worse. The smalll amount of electricity I do use is 100% 'natural power' so if the electricity company is not producing it renewably themselves at least they are buying certificates for it. I live in an old house, drive a small, efficient car, so, comparatively, I don't think I'm doing that much damage. But if we each get a carbon account I'll be using mine to drive (or ride a motorbike) to work, because public transport is so unpleasant I'd have to take anti-depressants to cope.

Earlier there was a denial that proponents of higher density living hate cars. Quite so. What they hate is our suburban culture. Fair enough, if they would be happier living in higher density and being crammed into trains, they are welcome to it. But please don't tell us that we're just resistant to change, because we're capable of understanding the advantages and disadvantages of higher density living, but on balance, we choose a lifestyle different to the one you choose.

Plutonium is what nuclear weapons are made out of, so in what sense do fast breeder reactors"eat weapons"?

As for the statement that we have too little nuclear waste - I am just stunned. I can only guess you're trollong or very, very naive about this issue.

"Lorna, we're talking about the future of civilisation, ie there won't be any, if people allow themselves to be treated worse than cattle and crammed into trains".

OK, so you have a train phobia. Maybe you had a bad experience, like someone I worked with who had her bag snatched on a late-night train. Nothing would persuade her back onto a train either.

I've learned by experience that there's no reasoning with people in your situation. Nothing will persuade you to get on a train again, so you'll never have a positive experience to counteract your negative ones.

I've had a few memorable bad experiences on trains but working in various urban campuses where parking is expensive and limited, and not having the luxury of spending my travel time clutching a wheel and listening to the radio (I have to combine full-time study and work) I had no choice but to overcome them and carry on travelling by train.

Guess what - nearly all the time, travelling by train is on the whole, fine - in fact it's LESS frustrating, unpleasant and scary than driving.

I accept you're unlikely to overcome your personal fears or prejudices but the fact is, Australia, and the world in general, will grin to a halt (for several reasons) if everyone insisted on driving everywhere.

Paul, the doco is about nuclear waste. As such, Gen IV nuclear technology virtually entirely negates it. Your next objection? The industry? Industries as such are a human construct, they can be reformed. The issue of industry behaviour needs to be considered separately from that of technology. Otherwise, whither Areva, the French nuclear power company - but also a major player in renewable energy. By your logic, then, the solar energy industry must be irredeemably corrupt as well.

The solar industries electrical engineers, scientists working in this field operate in a completely different atmosphere and a culture. Why would you expect the Energy industry to leave solar out of their investment portfolio? They are help by energy multinationals, but operate in a completely different culture.

On the other hand, bad corporate culture, with webs of deception regarding the nuclear industries practice right up to this day, begs the question. Can we trust them with the planets future?

The nuclear industries culture started out of the US military. Unfortunately this culture has been the dominating feature of all civilian nuclear facilities. With secrecy and the principle of "need to know" at the very core of their public relations and information decimation.

Anyone but nuclear industries privileged have access to information on their proposals being of benefit to the planet, we are left with the caveat.
"trust us we will look after the world". In reality, faith. A hope that, gen IV won't fail as have all other generations.

The choice is faith in an imagined future based on the nuclear industries release of information or accepting the real world trail of environmental disasters makes them a very bad choice.

[by the way they use the very same advertising agencies the tobacco industry does]

"OK, so you have a train phobia. Maybe you had a bad experience .... I accept you're unlikely to overcome your personal fears or prejudices ..."

Lorna, if you're going to become an academic try to learn to read for comprehension. I stated earlier that I had caught the train to work for YEARS, and certainly that included the odd bad experience, which didn't make me stop catching the train. What did was the ever increasing crowdedness to the point where you had to almost force yourself on to the train and then stand packed in for the trip into town - absolutely no chance of getting any work done, hardly possible, in fact, to breathe.

Like most Australians I've travelled a bit and I've lived in crowded places. I lived in an apartment in Guangzhou for 3 years and moved about by bike. Although I lived near Jakarta I didn't drive there either - the private transport systems were excellent. There are lots of things I like about city living. But I also like living with a garden around me and growing fruit, vegetables, and flowers for the house, I like quietness at night and not smelling other people's cigarettes or cooking, I like the space and privacy of sunbaking in my backyard. For many reasons, I prefer suburban living, and others do too.

Nice try, but I remain far from convinced. George Monbiot comprehensively skewered this argument here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/04/nuclear-industry-stinks-cleaner-energy

It also strikes me that as things currently stand, solar requires far, far more faith than nuclear.

Mark, you actually feel George Monbiot is an appropriate source of unbiased information on the nuclear industries waste issue and future technology? Really?
He works as a journalist for a news service who accepts advertising from the nuclear industries agencies. Just another in the long line of high profile people to use hope faith and the utopian dream to sell and industry with the worst human health record on the planet. A strategy used effectively by big tobacco year after year, and recently in Australia over packaging.

As for solar, or any other energy device, the main opponents of these systems are utilities that will lose power because of household energy autonomy. Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, well read and respected worldwide on the subject often explains that we could completely convert to a solar economy in five years with current technology. Should we have more faith in George Monbiot, than this unaligned Australian?

I respect your faith, know it is appropriate for your value system. But it will never meet mine and demands of life on this planet.

I'm standing by all my assertions thanks. Surely you understand that most Australian trains aren't as crowded as the ones you caught? If you're extrapolating your own experiences to state that civilisation will end then obviously you've got a phobia!

Other assertion - you may enjoy living in the suburbs and growing fruit but (a) that doesn't mean this is a viable option for most Australians into the future and (b) I have plenty of space and quiet, grow my own fruit and veggies, have swathes of bushland at my doorstep and A TEN MINUTE WALK TO THE EXPRESS TRAINS INTO THE CAPITAL. Don't need to live in the city to have good public transport!

I'd have hoped you were more interested in what Monbiot had to say than who he is. He's constructing an argument, not acting as a primary information source. Apparently you're unable to address the former (and note he provides references for the latter). And just quietly, your characterisation of him and especially The Guardian is so far off beam as to be ridiculous. You do realise that Monbiot only adopted a position that could be construed as pro-nuclear (and a highly equivocal one at that) POST-Fukushima, don't you? Are you really saying he did so only in response to some commercial deal? Honestly, "He works as a journalist for a news service who accepts advertising from the nuclear industries' AGENCIES"? Could you draw any longer bow? That's grassy knoll stuff.

But if you want to compare credentials, I don't think you'll find Dr Karl is as widely read or respected in this area as you seem to think. Certainly I see no prima facie reason to take him as any more 'unaligned' than Monbiot. But in the end it should come down to the strength of the arguments, not the protagonists. And insofar as Dr Karl is cribbing from the widely discredited Zero Carbon Australia 2020 report for his 'solar in 5 years' scenario, his cuts no ice.

"Surely you understand that most Australian trains aren't as crowded as the ones you caught?"

No, I don't know that. One of the other lines in Perth is even more crowded than the line I was on. And in this conversation Paul wrote that the trams in Melbourne were even more crowded than Perth trains. Perhaps it is you who are unusually lucky, to have a seat on your commute.

Hi Lorna, Well that's my background as well. However I recognise that all technology changes, including nuclear. It's easier to continue to say no, but that doesn't do much justice to a PhD.
There's a high probability we will eventually get the benefits of IFR - if only as an insurance against renewables being unable to be unrolled fast enough.
If you are interested have a look at Barry Brooks site:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/10/ifr-fad-5/
If you join his email list you get all the latest news. I've personally met and discussed this stuff with Tom Blees, Jim Hansen and Barry Barry Brook. I believe them...../Chris

The plural of anecdote ain't data, especially when the plural is in single figures! Say we got credible stats on the Australian train system as a whole and say it was in general, too crowded. That would just mean we need more trains.

The suburban dream just doesn't scale to present and future population levels. And as more people go to uni, the idea that every student and staff member will drive, becomes more and more untenable: even if you could replace the streets with freeways you just couldn't provide enough parking. Even if you bought up surrounding land for parking space (good luck with that in metropolitan campuses) it'd be too far to walk from parking to lectures!

I'm sure you must have seen those illustrations of the amount of space needed to move 30 people by bike, bus and car. Bikes don't take much room to park - buses don't hang around for long and trains even less so.

Look - this debate was going on in Britain sometime in the last millenium. If you understand dynamic equilibrium you'll understand why building more roads doesn't decrease congestion. Make car travel less shitty relative to public transport and people will respond by moving from public transport into cars (except for the socially disadvantaged who have no choice ). Make public transport more attractive and people will move out of their cars.

Chris Lorna has the right to be wary. Anyone who is coming on strong in defence of a sixty year experiment that has failed dismally and literally done incalculable damage to life on earth, really does need to do there due diligence regarding nuclear waste and what happens to it.

After watching this current documentary link below, on the subject, please come back and tell us the "theoretical gen IV IFR reactor" is safe and that you still trust a nuclear industry to be honest about the future.

http://youtu.be/QEbjYr8rubA

Lorna, in the absence of data I was simply referring to the experiences recorded in this conversation. You say that crowded trains "just mean we need more trains." But I already said "news reports of trains so crowded people can't get on to them - and this when we're comparatively prosperous, so I don't see much hope of the train service ever being an option for civilised commuting". Realistically, do you think commuting by train is ever likely to be more pleasant than now? Certainly not if there's a rush to trains as a result of rapidly rising fuel prices.

The suburban dream may not be possible for most people in the world, but we're extraordinarily lucky, because it is here, with proper planning and infrastructure. Technology is making it possible for work to be more dispersed; we can still do more with varying work times and spreading the peak hour traffic.

"building more roads doesn't decrease congestion" is a myth. In Perth when the congestion at the Narrows Bridge was getting severe they 'duplicated' the bridge and instead of 6 lanes we got 12. The congestion was relieved immediately and now, more than 10 years later, in a fast growing city, it's still not as bad as it was with just 6 lanes. As we have more cars we can build more bridges (at Stock Road!) and tunnels and keep the traffic moving.

I hope public transport is much enlarged and improved. But I don't have the dislike of suburban living (and driving) that prompts people to be so enthusiatic for oil crises and forcing people into a different style of life.

Seriously Paul Richards, stop raving about energy systems as having a 'culture', it's just sounds silly and paranoid. Show us the figures! If you want to see 'nuclear culture' at it's best, check out this 2 minute promo by Dr Barry Brook, head of climate at Adelaide University.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98frSed0F5

Lorna, I'm not a scientist and you're a Phd candidate for science education. And I have to explain this to you? Did you even *read* the wiki?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts

As for Integral Fast Reactors NOT producing nuclear bombs, you need to read up on the *grade* of plutonium they produce as they fission the uranium into various grades of plutonium and other fission products. IFR's simply don't produce weapons grade plutonium: but they *can* eat it. I mean, if you read the wiki above you'll see that even *today's* reactors have already eaten the equivalent of 16 000 warheads worth of Soviet ear warheads. Isn't that something to celebrate?

"From 1995 through September 2010, 400 metric tons of highly-enriched uranium from Russian nuclear warheads have been recycled into low-enriched-uranium fuel for U.S. nuclear power plants. The first plant to receive fuel containing uranium under this program was the Cooper Nuclear Station in 1998.[1] This program has eliminated the equivalent of 16,000 nuclear warheads. The Megatons to Megawatts government-to-government program goal of eliminating 500 metric tons of warhead material is scheduled to be completed in 2013. Currently, one in 10 American homes, businesses, schools and hospitals receive electricity generated by Megatons to Megawatts fuel.[2]"

Russell, you are coming across as a man obsessed with the status quo. Are you actually saying we need more cars?

"building more roads doesn't decrease congestion" is a myth, who here said that?

All I see here is everyone advocating more appropriate traffic infrastructure, a balanced use of motor vehicles, cycles, and public transport. With me in particular advocating the architectural overview of Humanising Cities. What Patrick is promoting is our need to change course and direction and being aware of wow change is coming.

What we have now is a totally motor vehicle biased infrastructure.

No one is saying only to build public transport and dump motor vehicles.

An example of the good infrastructure we are advocating is this well designed motor vehicle intersection, that has been humanised ; http://youtu.be/ki-kUVaPLvc

PS: Lorna, it's *possible* to retinker the IFR to make bombs grade material, but that would also be OBVIOUS! I'm talking about legitimately inspected IFR's running the normal fuel reprocessing routines. A rouge state could mess up their IFR fuel system to fashion bombs, but it would be easier and safer for them and CHEAPER to just build a graphite fission pile. That remains the case with or without nuclear power. Uranium fission piles are not that hard to come by. A cheap inexhaustible safe and clean supply of power IS hard to come by. Defying the increasingly powerful IAEA would be suicidal for a country's energy security, economic growth, and ultimately state security.
We can use nuclear power and control proliferation. It's not that hard. And having burned up 16000 warheads worth of plutonium already, I'm convinced we should give these IFR's a go as they are commercialised over the next 10 years!

Typo: the last sentence sounds like I'm saying IFR's are around today. I meant to write:

And having burned up 16000 warheads worth of plutonium already in today's reactors, I'm convinced we should build out AP1000's and other safe reactors until the IFR's are commercialised over the next 10 years!

Russell can wish all he likes, but after peak oil the average car price will rise maybe $20k to $30k due to expensive electric car technology. No other liquid fuel energy system can scale, not with today's technology. Time to buy a pushbike and write to your local members about the need for instant trolley-bus lines! Trolley buses avoid all that bike disrupting rail. They also allow the trolley bus to go off on side streets, or drive around obstacles, and then quickly whip back onto the main power-lines. We're going to need them!

Pau - I was quoting Lorna who was saying that building roads doesn't decrease congestion - see comment above mine.

I'm not obssessed with the status quo because I have set my heart against any change. I want to keep in my life the benefits that car convenience gives me. On a summer day, like today, I not only have my morning swim, but I have another in the evening after work. A beautiful walk along Port-Leighton beaches (cool breeze, still warm sun) and a relaxing sunset swim. There aren't many people in the world who wouldn't want that, and it's because of the time saved by car commuting that I have it.

While not exactly 'private affluence, public squalor' peak hour train commuting is a really unpleasant way to start and end your day in Perth, and I don't see it getting any better.

Similarly with bicycle infrastructure - I have complained to the Main Roads Dept (letter with photos) about the rotten state of their cyclepath but it doesn't do much good. Meanwhile local councils go about making things more dangerous for cyclists by narrowing intersections - they push the edges of the verges into the intersection and put a little roundabout in the middle so that there's just enough room for a car to get 'round.. You would hope that motorists would wait the whole 5 seconds for a cyclist going around in front of them in this fiasco, but half of them don't and then you find that you're forced to a centimetre from the high concrete kerb and if you stuck out your elbow you could touch the car trying to pass you. Dangerous and unpleasant.

I have good reasons for choosing to travel by car - it isn't prejudice or fear of hatred of change, but for the comfort and convenience of the car, and the things I can do in the time it saves me.

I haven't got a clue about energy sources, but apparently W.A. is the Saudi Arabia of gas, so I guess we'll have enough of that to run our cars for a while. Conversion to gas isn't $20k - more like 10% of that.

What about coal - can coal be liquified somehow and used as a fuel? We've got an awful lot of coal.

" ...... having burned up 16000 warheads worth of plutonium" Hmmm ......... interesting story, it always sounds so plausible, believable.

Yes, warheads are partially incorporated in MOX fuel or re processed plutonium. The plutonium converts to other toxic radioactive material, it doesn't burn up. You do realise that the waste from MOX is reprocessed again and again stored don't you?

The toxic waste issue doesn't go away, as it has a half life of toxicity for a half a million years. Longer than any governing power has ever had control on earth.

It literally hasn't burned up as the "story" you are repeating implies.

Have you watched the video documentary on current nuclear industry? After coming out with the story you have, I already know the answer. People took a great deal of risk to make it so we can do our due diligence on the issue; http://youtu.be/QEbjYr8rubA

Are you going to step up and do your due diligence on the nuclear waste issue?

I forgot to mention IFR are still - theoretical - that's the other part of the "story" that rarely is talked about.
With a projected first IFR construction date, if the experiment works of - 2060.

"I have set my heart against any change" Hey Russell, that's ok. It's where you are and that is appropriate, your heart is in the right place. But earth's population has already exceeded 7 billion, and sustainable growth is an oxymoron; http://goo.gl/tkAZp

Gaia, may well sort the growth issue, even if humans fail to.

Paul - that sentence is meant to read that I haven't set my heart against change - and especially not because I love the status quo. You'll be glad to know that the behemoth from the Netherlands had its punctured tube replaced on Saturday, so I am again riding to the beach for my morning swim. Also, am thinking of breaking my long standing ban on flying and thinking about a holiday in Buenos Aries and Havana - I feel like a change!

Eclipse Now: "Lorna, I'm not a scientist and you're a Phd candidate for science education. And I have to explain this to you? Did you even *read* the wiki? "

OK ... where to start?

1. Yes I am a scientist - actually a physicist - so don't you think it's possible that I might already understand the physics better than you? I don't mean to be rude but I did spend 7 years studying the subject. I'm sure you know lots more than I do about design than I do, and I wouldn't dream of lecturing you on some point of design that I'd looked up in a wiki.

2. Wikipedia is not exactly an academic reference - but if you appreciate its limits it's usually OK as a starting point. Here's what wikipedia has to say about gen IV:

"Generation IV reactors (Gen IV) are a set of THEORETICAL nuclear reactor designs currently being researched" - so they don't actually exist yet.

Here's one of the stated "advantages"

"Nuclear waste that remains dangerously radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia". Sounds just great dunnit?

Then there's this:
"One disadvantage of any new reactor technology is that safety risks may be greater initially as reactor operators have little experience with the new design. Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum has explained that almost all serious nuclear accidents have occurred with what was at the time the most recent technology."

Considering the long-term consequences when reactors go wrong, that statement sounds pretty ominous.

Incorrect. We were within 18 months of a working prototype in 1994, with most of the components built and tested. Don't know where you pulled 2060 from, sounds like bull to me. As is your 'half a million years' half life figure. The time for the (minuscule amount of) waste from an IFR to decay to background levels (never mind half life) is 300 years.

And will you please stop banging on about your video. No, I'm not going to spend 98 minutes and who knows how many megabytes watching it, for the reason given above: "Paul, the doco is about nuclear waste. As such, Gen IV nuclear technology virtually entirely negates it." What part of 'entirely negates' did you not understand?

Mark, the agencies say very soon " that's the story". Spin for funding? Time will tell.
This industry is very creative at keeping 1940/50s dream alive.

"the Generation IV systems are expected to become available for commercial introduction in the period between 2015 and 2030 or beyond"
~ The Generation IV International Forum ~

Other industry sources say 2060, even if the European Gen IV program goes ahead it's projected completion is 2025. All imagined futures.

All these are "if's" and the whole senario is still theoretical requiring faith, which you have in abundance. That is totally appropriate for your level of thought.

As for the issue of waste, It is disappointing you can't afford time to do your due diligence. Looks like your value system is transparent after all. Those who study foresight will grok that. Highly evolved Blue - SD

http://www.world-nuclear.org/

Riiiight.

And yes, they are imagined futures. All futures are.

Thanks Michael. I understand why biofuels don't scale but can you clarify why this isn't the case for shale / tar sand? I understand that the ecological impact of these (and coal seam gas of course) make them an unadvisable source of fuel but is it also the case they they're not viable in terms of EROI?

Actually, it does sound great. Compared with other widely dispersed toxic materials like mercury, lead and PCBs, which have been responsible for large scale health problems, nuclear waste is pretty good, as waste goes. It is solid, robust, self-contained, relatively small in volume and gets less toxic with time. And a few centuries isn't even as long as arguably the most dangerous pollutant of all, CO2, will be at elevated concentration in the atmosphere as a result of our current energy consumption.

Did I mention small in volume? We're talking about a golf ball-sized lump of material for an entire lifetime's supply of energy (note that's energy, not just electricity). Geological sequestration of such small amounts of material is technically trivial, a non-issue. If you have a problem with handling such small amounts of (temporary) waste for such a stupendous return in energy, you have a problem with modern civilisation - because no other technology, especially not solar and wind, will give you that sort of energy for such a small amount of waste needing management.

Oh, and contrary to Wikipedia, Generation IV reactors are far more advanced than 'theoretical', see for example http://atomicinsights.com/2008/08/recalling-the-integral-fast-reactor-ifr-passive-safety-experiments.html

Mark we are on the same page, great.
Here is an imagined future, that is being explored in Italy by Andrea Rossi and the US by NASA.

http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html

Thanks Michael for the explanation and the reference. I really enjoyed this talk by Saul Griffith based on power calculations (it even has a happy ending):

http://blog.longnow.org/2009/01/19/saul-griffith-climate-change-recalculated/

I worry about the lack of basic science in policy-making. While some of us were beaten with sticks until we understood that efficiency = useful energy out / TOTAL energy in, it seems that such fundamental realities are completely missing from policy-making - resulting in decisions like Sydney's desalination plant.

Rod Adams - is an ex-military US Navy Submarine Officer with a value system suited to this culture. As a source, questionable as he is a nuclear industry lobbyist. [unashamedly looking for funding]

Maybe, Kirk Sorensen he actually works in the industry. At Teledyne Brown Engineering, who produce nuclear hardware, and is currently lecturing on this subject to the industry. He has been researching the nuclear fuel cycle for many years in connection with a strong interest in thorium as a planetary energy source.

http://youtu.be/rv-mFSoZOkE

Paul, any chance of you ever addressing the arguments and the facts rather than who is presenting them?

Arguments - possible futures ok. Facts?
Are you saying it isn't appropriate to look at the credibility of the information, and the value systems they come from?

Lorna, Lorna, Lorna.
I never pretended to understand even the BASIC physics of nuclear energy, let alone trying to tread on your turf. I just asked whether or not you'd even read about Integral Fast Reactors? Your snooty appeal to your own authority was a lazy attempt to hide the fact that you obviously know *nothing* about nuclear *history* even if you could run rings around me in a physics lab.

Ooops. Never heard of the EBR 2 hey? You should hang out at Professor Barry Brook's blog, Brave New Climate. Even a nuclear newbie like myself knows of the EBR 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II

Not only that, but G.E. have an IFR design ready to go, a *modular* design that will allow nukes to be put on the production line and mass-produced in an enclosed factory environment. We're talking about mass-production of clean baseload power that will burn up the world's nuclear waste and save us from peak oil, climate change, and the brown outs and EXTREME cost of a grid comprised only of 'unreliables'. (What those of us at BNC call renewables).

Why oh why are so many smart people fooled by the claims of large energy corporations trying to squeeze the government purse for all the money they can? (I'm speaking of wind companies who promise baseload power but can't ever deliver).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-PRISM

Look I could spend ages picking holes in your comment above but given your responses all over this thread there's obviously no point.

Just one thing - on a site where academics hang out you're really not going to win over too many people citing Wikipedia and blogs...

"........ what Adams (in this instance) states is not true? Mark Duffett

No the industry don’t call what Adams does lying, it’s called lobbying selling possible scenario, dreams of future events, selling. Raising capital for projects, changing public opinion, he is part of the right wing “think tank”. He tells truths, but omits some serious points and like a car salesman it is prudent to remember caveat emptor.

Kirk Sorenson parallels the mechanic and designer of the car. He actually designs civilian nuclear power stations and continues to study nuclear physics while working in the industry and he actually lectures on new generation fission and use of spend fuel.

Mark, there are many civilian nuclear engineers and designers like Kirk Sorenson, with credibility. Take your pick, quote any genuine source. All you have posted I have looked up and examined, I will watch video, read etc.etc. My mind is open, this can be a win win scenario, I know we both will learn.

But please get past the sales people, critical thinking is not the forte of lobbyist.

As for value systems, how else can we see how bias affect the story they tell?
Motive is crucial.

A simple example, the military are consistant in their need to produce plutonium. Where as, the civilian sector is doing their best to produce corporate profit.

It's getting confusing Lorna - that comment was linked to me - but I see it is written to the pseudonym Eclipse Now. I enjoy all your comments, the critical thinking is evident.

I guess the value systems, levels of thought, state of personal development are so varied, some can't help but quote inappropriate sources. The Conversation was constructed as a conduit to the wider public, so for me it's ok if they quote wikipedia.

But you are right, those with access to the published scientific journals will look down their noses. But that's another story, on another thread.

Paul, you continue to miss my point, so I'll have another go at spelling it out. If I wrote "nuclear energy is the best thing since sliced bread" and cited Adams' opinion in support, then your focus on his background would be justified. But in this case all I did was point to evidence that happened to be presented on his blog, which was based on a peer-reviewed paper (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2532990), in support of my contention that the IFR had progressed a good deal beyond the 'theoretical design' characterisation of Lorna and Wikipedia.

If you have a problem with that evidence, then by all means let's hear it. But please, enough with the ad hominems.

"IFR had progressed a good deal beyond the 'theoretical design' Mark Duffett

Mark I do agree, most of the people involved in the experiment on IFR are desperately seeking more funding after the project failed.

So where is the IFR project, who has outlined the contract, where is it starting and which corporations are involved in tendering? Which nuclear manufacturer is actually involved?

There was a proposal put forward by the typical industry "think tank" recently, that is all. Some of the good folk @ thesciencecouncil.com [not to be confused with the actual Science Council] worked in the theoretical and experimental EBR-II and some on the experimental IFR projects at Argonne National Laboratory.

A petition was raised and put to the Obama administration. It failed to raise even 400 signatures of the 5000 needed to get the petition heard.

During the floating of this 2011 proposal they flooded the internet with ideas, projected futures and hope that the industry who has behaved badly for over sixty could make it up with IFR.

We all live in hope that at some stage in human existence we indeed can right the nuclear toxicity issue. It isn't looking very good, neither is nuclear waste storage for over thousand years looking possible.

If you're as familiar with Monbiot as you said, you should know better than that: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-energy-solution

Answers to your questions are, respectively, Sellafield, the UK Government, Sellafield and GE-Hitachi. Notwithstanding that the proposal is only three quarters of an IFR as it does not include the reprocessing plant (but this can easily be added on subsequently and Monbiot argues compellingly why it should be http://www.monbiot.com/2012/02/02/nuclear-vs-nuclear-vs-nuclear/), fundamentally it is IFR technology.

Gen III is fundamentally a Gen IV reactor. Seriously.

Where are the contracts to build Gen IV?

The petition failed;

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/restart-integral-fast-reactor-nuclear-power-technology-program/rNcTbfdw?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

So Lorna, you're running away rather than admit the EBR2 ever existed?

Oh Lorna, and I'd just point out the irony here. This "The Conversation" article has comments. To some, that would make *this* very discussion a 'blog'. I'm not just recommending scribble on the toilet wall here, as you appear to be tarnishing everything published on the internet. I'm recommending the written work by Professor Barry Brook, head of the climate department at Adelaide University. And yes, his writing happens to appear on this modern thing we call the 'internet' in a 'web-log'. Get with the modern world.

Here are the limits to renewable energy. You'll find all manner of links to peer-reviewed scientific papers PROVING that renewable energy will hardly keep up with the new demands for energy, let alone shut down old coal-fired power plants. If you want to face a climate catastrophe, go on promoting 'unreliables'. Go ahead. The planet you'll be hurting is your own.
http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/

Maybe you honestly think your comments actually are a form of rational discussion. When you put up strawman arguments and make personal comments about people you've never met and know nothing about, you only make yourself look silly. Here are a few - see if you can work out where you're going wrong:

"you appear to be tarnishing everything published on the internet" (have a look at what I actually wrote)
"this modern thing we call the 'internet' in a 'web-log'. Get with the modern world" (rude - also a pretty weird thing to say to someone who's communicating with you *on the internet*)
"peer-reviewed scientific papers PROVING that renewable energy will hardly keep up with the new demands" (can't actually prove anything of the sort - although you might enjoy Saul Griffith's Long Now talk - with calculations - on how they CAN).

Lorna,
appreciate your critical thinking and rational discussions.
Disappointed to see you have suffered abuse over the theoretical generation four nuclear reactors.


My best research on this issue is that Bill Gates as the primary investor in Terrapower, has the best chance at implementing new generation four reactor technology. During talks in December 2011 at China's Ministry of Science and Technology he introduced a generation four nuclear reactor proposal to the Chinese Government.

The technology he spoke of is classified as a Travelling Wave Reactor it's a theoretical reactor, under study by Terrapower that requires no enriched uranium, but actually uses depleted uranium, which means hardly any nuclear waste. They can also run for decades theoretically without refuelling. The name comes from the idea that fission begins in a specific part of the core and moves outward, in a traveling wave. Chinese scientists will be researching the possibilities of this reactor over the next five years.

The Nuclear Energy division of GE, was involved in the development engineering based on Experimental Breeder Reactor II [EBR II] GE’s designs for Integral Fast Reactor presented a design for a commercial version of the IFR called the S-PRISM reactor.
The Power Reactor Innovative Small Module or S-PRISM project is a corporate joint venture for profit with Hitachi. This has failed sales bid for construction and the majority of ‘information’ on the internet has been lobbyist sourced.

A last ditch campaign was launched in the US in 2011, involved a vocal local University lecturer and subsequently the internet was awash with ‘information’, or projected future scenario. This campaign failed in the US and lobbyist focus switched to a nuclear programme abandoned two decades ago in the UK, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority or NDA. GE then submitted an unsolicited offer to the NDA to use its new technology which is based on the design of the Integral Fast Reactor first deployed at the Argonne National Laboratory - West site in Idaho. It was in continuous development for several decades until it was cancelled by the Clinton Administration in the mid-1990s.

As a result of this lobbying the NDA and senior advisers within the Department for Energy and Climate Change or DECC asked for technical and financial details of an GE-Hitachi S-PRISM fast reactor that use reprocessed plutonium waste as nuclear fuel.

However on January 24th 2012, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority managers said; 
“they felt the reactor would create large amounts of plutonium contaminated waste and increase the risk that terrorists might access it to make nuclear weapons.”

We live in hope though, and as mentioned before “ I have an eye on eCat”.

My take on the nuclear industry remains extremely expensive to establish, has developed from the military, so still carries it’s culture of secrecy and its expansion will take public money away from the development of clean renewable energy technologies.

The downside is we face ‘information’ from both the US and UK GE-Hitatchi sales campaigns that has left a a trail of weasel words, disinformation and delusional well meaning individuals. Thanks again for The Conversation, hoping we can talk about Humanising Cites in the future.

Bill Gates Terrapower generation four generation nuclear reactor TWR
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/energy/bill-gates-to-collaborate-with-china-on-a-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactor

Failed US petition on Integral Fast Reactor:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/restart-integral-fast-reactor-nuclear-power-technology-program/rNcTbfdw?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

Failed bid by GE over the UK Integral Fast Reactor sale
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/24/sellafield-plutonium-reactor-plans-rejected

Er, Lorna, you do realise that the scenario Saul Griffith painted in his Long Now talk did NOT show that renewables can do the decarbonisation job? Because as I understand it, the single largest contribution in it came from...new nuclear. And never mind that his calculation was in watts, which solar and wind only produce about 30% of the time, as opposed to nuclear's 80% plus.

Mark, I've listened to it at least twice though, I could be wrong but I don't recall any significant reliance on nuclear. Any excuse to listen to it again...

As for using Watts - this was whole point - and the real genius of Saul's talk!! By looking at energy per unit time you can factor in things like the amount of time that solar cells etc. work, the lifespa of Mont Blanc versus cheap pens etc. So PV only produced energy 30% of the day? Divide the average power over the productive time by 3 and you have average power for the 24 hours. So it's all been factored in already.

Paul - the abuse doesn't bother me but the ad hominems and broken-record stuff are so BORING!! And childish too actually, although the comment about "running away" was kinda funny.

I'm pretty sure I haven't said anywhere here that I would never under any circumstances consider nuclear power. However the arguments in favour would have to be a lot more convincing than what I've seen here - and when people resort to abuse it's a sure sign they either aren't capable of constructing a rational argument or for some emotional reason can't cope with others disagreeing with their point of view.

Funny how a discussion on humanising cities (a topic I'm intensely interested in) has morphed into a hard-sell session on nuclear power (which I'm not).

Lorna said:
"30% of the day? Divide the average power over the productive time by 3 and you have average power for the 24 hours. So it's all been factored in already."

That's what you'd do if you wanted to be *DISHONEST* about renewable energy. Because people want power ALL day, don't they? So what do we do the rest of the day after we've already spent tens of thousands of dollars on Solar PV on our roofs? (Oh yeah, this is in an unsubsidised world so that the government doesn't go bankrupt trying to pay for fantasies).

We build a local WIND farm! Fantastic. So when the sun's not shining the wind's blowing, right? Wrong. Outside my window it's very dark. Ok, then maybe we pipe in the power from South Australia, or somewhere that might have some more reliable wind than here.

So now we have to buy the Solar PV + the wind turbines + the HVDC lines to pipe in the juice when there's none locally. And modelling STILL shows vast areas of Australia that will be without sun OR wind for long periods of time.

So after building Solar PV + wind + HVDC, we've got to build giant flywheels in every home, giant hydro dam stored water pump batteries off the Nullarbor cliffs, giant *anything* to store power. We still can't do it. There just isn't enough money. I wish it were not so, but this is the conclusion of dozens of peer-reviewed papers being discussed over at Professor Brook's blog.
http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/

Fortunately for us we've cracked safe nuclear power in today's AP1000 and safer, cleaner, waste-burning IFR's in tomorrow's nukes. There's no need to panic. And there's no need to resort to fairy tales about renewables; after all, if we're going to believe James Hansen about climate change, shouldn't we also believe him when he says:

///Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.///

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/05/hansen-energy-kool-aid/

Here's James Hansen's Science Council page on the IFR.

http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/steve-kirsch/95-the-integral-fast-reactor.html

Eclipse Now: "That's what you'd do if you wanted to be *DISHONEST* "

If PV produced average 1KW 100% of the day, you'd divide by 1and get 1KW
If it produced ave 1KW for 50% of the day, you'd divide by 2 and get 0.5KW
If it produced ave 1KW for 25% of the day you'd divide by 4 and get 0.25KW.

Lorna, I'm was only going off the visual version (http://www.slideshare.net/energyliteracy/longnow-16-jan-09), but you can also see it in the precis given by Stewart Brand: http://www.slideshare.net/energyliteracy/longnow-16-jan-09

But further to EN's point, surely you can see that Griffith's framing of the issue in watts is an oversimplification in some respects? Sure it takes capacity factors into account, but that still assumes electricity supply can be averaged out, e.g. an oversupply from PV at noon can be used to make up the shortfall at night. It can't, and nor is there any prospect of it doing so at the scale required. This is the fundamental problem for any scheme relying largely on non-hydro renewables; the implied overbuild of back-up alternative generation to maintain a reasonable level of reliability is massive.

Sorry, that second link should have been http://longnow.org/seminars/02009/jan/16/climate-change-recalculated/

I should also acknowledge the fact that I was mistaken in initially implying that Griffith did not take capacity factor into account.

Lorna - I hope you are comfortably deflated after being in a puffed state : )

"But I can't stand seeing rosy misinformation about energy systems being sprinkled around like so much fairy dust." Eclipse Now

" ... ay, there's the rub"
1594, William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark

Using balanced critical thinking is difficult in the "foresight process", emotionsl often cloud the dialogue, but are essential. Foresight workshops I have attended can get very heated, leading them is a real challenge ; )

George Monbiot's point about critical thinking and using the skill in a balanced way is so applicable here.

"We have to challenge the ideas we like far more fiercely than the ideas we don't like," ~ George Monbiot ~

Wishing you well,
the "fairy dust" sprinkler.

Actually Paul I've got a dislocated shoulder from patting myself on the back. If only I'd known it was such a risky thing to do!

I like the George Monbiot quote - it reminded me of this, which was brought to my attention recently, and which Monbiot commented on in the Guardian:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.full.pdf+html

Hope you have a great weekend. Being a slackarse stoodent, all days of the week are essentially the same to me (in my defence, this is the first time in my PhD candidature that I've not had a real job on the side).

cheers

Chris Sanderson - eat nuclear warheads this is part of the utopian dream of the 1940s. A story easily exposed. Due diligence on this one with eyes wide open.

Spend some time with this one documentary and come back and tell me you still feel the same; http://youtu.be/QEbjYr8rubA

"Think too of all the economic growth required to build up and maintain a 6 billion vehicle fleet, and what that also means in terms of heat.

The heat is a problem, and consitutes a fundamental thermodynamic limit to economic growth. This isexplained by physicist Tom Murphy."

It surely does. Billions of cars at several time-averaged kilowatts each amount to trillions of watts; maybe tens of TW, with the other activities that would go along with, the, as you say, "required economic growth". Tens of TW that the earth must shine away in the far infrared, along with the ~120000 TW that the Sun gives it.

Murphy's blog had some sort of catchy title ... what was that title, do you recall?

Nice blog thanks Michael - I like things like this that include formulas, calculations, things that can be followed through and checked on. Us physicists like things simple!

One tiny hitch - thesis to write...