nuclear-news

First, tag your shark. Then have an informed debate – Letters – Opinion

Efficiency beats nuclear as realistic route on emissionsHeather Ridout (Letters, March 4) says most actions to reduce emissions involve costs that, in the main, will not be recovered by energy savings.Modelling by McKinsey and Company shows that potential energy savings are substantial and that reducing emissions to 30 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 is affordable and does not require major technological breakthroughs or lifestyle changes (“Going green for 80 cents a day”, February 15, 2008).Their work suggests savings from energy efficiency can pay for most of the additional costs of cleaner energy supply. Energy efficiency is not just about turning the lights off. It includes addressing market failures, such as the lack of incentive for builders to install insulation in rental homes where tenants foot the power bills.

Gayle Adams Dulwich Hill

There are many reports and real life examples to show that large amounts of energy could be saved cost-effectively by being more efficient. In particular, we should be targeting inefficient industrial electric motor systems, commercial air handling systems and commercial lighting.

The Federal Government’s report Securing Australia’s Energy Future (2004) outlines that energy usage could be reduced by 10 to 30 per cent, saving $5 billion to $15 billion a year. Other reports show that such savings can be achieved by investing in energy efficiency projects with payback periods of less than four years. Projects with longer payback periods can save substantially more energy.

Energy efficiency can deliver dollar savings which can be used to reduce carbon emissions further by investing in renewable energy.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Peter Costello’s support for nuclear power is misguided. Sydney Morning Herald, 6 March 09The 2006 Switkowski report found that even building 25 nuclear reactors by 2050 would reduce emissions by a modest 17 per cent, assuming they replaced coal-fired plants. The reactors would cost $50-$100 billion and they would produce 45,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste.

They would also produce enough plutonium to build 45,000 nuclear weapons, bringing Australia far closer to a nuclear weapons capability and possibly encouraging countries in South-East Asia to move closer to a weapons capability under the guise of a civil nuclear program. Jim Green Friends of the Earth, Melbourne

First, tag your shark. Then have an informed debate – Letters – Opinion

March 7, 2009 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized