Loy Yang Power Station - Photo courtesy The Age
The effects of the huge earthquake and tsunami in Japan on its nuclear power stations has rekindled the debate on whether Nuclear Power is in fact a clean alternative to oil or coal-fired power stations.
We have developed a voracious appetite for power in the West and in emerging economies and because this is clearly associated with gradually improving living standards we are compromised in our ability to address the issue of reducing our consumption as a strategy to help the earth cope.
It occurred to me the other day that it is something of a tragedy that the easy option for us as we explored power generating options was to dig up a clearly finite resource and in using it to generate power create a toxic residue that has to be put in a safe place or it will poison us.
We gushed coal and oil smoke into the air for years but then cottoned on to the way of removing the particulates from the air as it goes up the stacks, but then we have to put them somewhere safe - it is a toxic waste.
Even gas-fired power consumes a resource that will one-day run out. The by products of burning natural gas is water and carbon dioxide, so we are still contributing the carbon problem even if it is cleaner.
Lucas Heights Nuclear Power Plant Photo courtesy The Age
Nuclear power seems clean in contrast to coal and oil-based power, but it still involves the digging up of a clearly finite resource and transforming it in the power-generating process into a toxic waste that we have not yet really worked out how to dispose of safely for the long term - nobody wants the waste "in their back yard."
I think that the purpose of a carbon tax is to create some cost-pressure that will not only reduce our demand for power but also provide a cost-incentive in pushing renewable technologies for power generation up to a scale that will make a significant contribution - hydro-power, geo-thermal, wind, solar and wave have all demonstrated their capacity to generate clean power. We now have to scale them up so that they can carry most of the load.
Base-load power might still need to be provided by coal/natural gas but a power system that follows our hybrid-car model that reduces the need for carbon-based fuel by about 70% sounds like a worthy goal.
I know that arrays like this are not the most cost-effective form of renewable power but I have been wondering if we could add the cost of a relevant sized array to the purchase price of a reverse-cycle air conditioner so that the addition of this power-guzzler would end up being power neutral to the home. By just making the PVC array part of the cost will put some downward pressure on our love affair with them,but also add to our renewable power capacity in the long run.
What do you think?
