I applaud the announcement and am pleased to see that Ireland is following Western Australia on this - well perhaps I am overstating it a bit, but a bloody great windfarm WAS opened outside of Albany last year.
I am concerned however that "clean and green" has been seen as an antonym to nuclear power - especially seeing nuclear power wasn't mentioned in the announcement.
Having roused the sleeping AWAD dragon, I will press on....all I ask is that emotions do not replace scientific fact in the hullaballoo that is no doubt about to erupt around here.
Some things to think about:
(1) Fossil fuel power stations emit more radiation throughout their life than a comparable nuclear power station. Even worse, the emissions from fossil fuel fired power stations are subject to less control than those of nuclear power stations - they are indisciminantly released to the atmosphere. If it's a new, very green, plant then a lot of effort is put into trapping the fly ash - particles of which are the subject of my concern. Good. But what happens to the ash? Oh, it's used for house bricks, road base etc etc.
(2) The gamma ray radiation (from pottasium, thorium & uranium) and radioactive gases (radon) given off by the groundrock in many places of the world far exceed that released by the local nuclear power station. Again, these natural releases are indiscriminate. Typical examples are Edinburgh (all that lovely granite), Sydney (those black shales that decompose to make such fine market garden soils) and the hilly suburbs of Perth (granitoids again).
(3) The energy required to produce a solar cell is greater than the energy that it will output throughout its life.
In stales' opinion...
Wind power? Excellent.
Tidal power? Fantastic.
Hydrothermal power? Yep - good stuff (onya Kiwi's)
Hydroelectric schemes? Good - but pity about all the riverine ecosystems that get buggered up. (And in Australia's case, the salinisation of the lands that use now use the available water for irrigation).
Nuclear power? Hmmm - well, if you must - after all, it is the most efficient.
Fossil fuel for power stations? Bring on the 2 headed babies.
Post Edit: Should be fair and separate gas turbines from coal and dieasel fired power stations. They are very clean, but still produce vast quantities of ozone depleting gases such as carbon dioxide.
stales
