1) the usage of the TGV, the French fast train, is going down and its cost is going up. SNCF, the French company which runs the TGV has just revised downwards the value of the fast train network.
2) the British government has just signed a deal with a French company to build 2 new nuclear reactors in Somerset. They are planned to come on line in 2023 and it is estimated that they will cause British power bills to fall in 2030.
Perhaps some Australian politicians should take note of both of these and do some sums.
1. Google translate says you are saying a very fast train produces a very fast economic train wreck.
ReplyDelete2. When we have cheap coal in Australia and you are a climate sceptic, why are you even suggesting the Oz government should look at the possible use of nuclear power stations? You are the only person I know, apart from the odd politician or former politician, who even suggests that we should consider nuclear power stations in Oz. We get more money selling to other countries and it costs more than coal. That would create somewhat of a nuclear reaction and quite a bit of fallout within the Oz community. Renewable energy is currently very costly, but we have time to do the R & D to get the costs down, if we are prepared to spend the money, before we have to use it. Then there is always the possibility of developing reactors using nuclear fusion, which is far better than nuclear fission with respect nuclear waste.
Hi Chris, I'm a bit confused about your mention of google translate, I thought I was writing in English. Or are you translating everything into German?
DeleteAlso Bart says he didn't mean we are all going to he'll, just that a bit of paradise was being destroyed. Also, he is not a non, only women can become nonne.
It is probably true that nuclear power is uneconomic in Australia, but I think we should keep an open mind and compare it with the cost of shale oil, for example.
I would also be interested in the relative effects on health. I suspect the real "carbon pollution" from a coal power station and oil refinery is much worse for your health than a nuclear power station.
I am using Google translate to translate English into English (tongue-in-cheek) to rephrase something that you have said. I couldn't be 100% sure who Anon was, but I'm glad it was Bart and wasn't a nun; no offence meant or taken. I also discovered that words in Flemish that I guessed because they look like a German word actually mean something else when I use Google to translate. Also my German is now very rusty, but not as rusty as my French or Latin. There was an article in the Telegraph that said carbon dioxide is not pollution. It said global warming will actually be beneficial to mankind up to 2080 (or however long it takes to have average temperatures approx. another 2 degree Celsius higher) but will be detrimental if the world keeps heating up thereafter.
ReplyDelete
DeleteYes, it's hard to get Latin practice for rusty Latin.
My understanding is that there has been a slow, linear increase in temperature over the last century, and the sea level rose by a centimeter or two (did anybody notice it?).
The current climate change theory says that:
(A) this rise is due to increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused by humans. The physical processes are not well understood (eg there has to be some multiplier effect to explain why the relatively small CO2 increase caused the observed temperature increase. The biggest greenhouse gas by far is water vapor).
(B) in order to predict the future, the experts have tried to build computer models of the relationship between CO2 and temperature. The claim is that this predicts a sudden exponential increase in temperature in the next century which will be disastrous. A famous paper included the "hockey stick" graph which showed this sudden increase in temperature. Whole books have been written about this and it is claimed that the data was selected and altered to make this graph look as bad as possible. For whatever reason, no one seems to talk about the hockey stick graph any more.
One strange thing over the last decade or two is that CO2 levels have increased faster than predicted, but the temperature increase has stopped for the last 15 years or so. It seems to be an open question as to whether this is sufficient evidence to discredit the computer models. If I stay healthy, I might live long enough to see whether the temperature rise continues to stop, or the slow linear increase resumes, or there is any observation of the theoretical exponential increase.
Incidentally, even the IPCC accepts that the temperature rise has paused, and that there has not been any increased frequency of extreme weather like hurricanes, floods or fires.
I believe some irrational commentators have tried to link the fires in Sydney with the temperature increase which has not happened. They are indeed irrational and presumably have no interest in scientific observations.