This is only a preview of the February 2007 issue of Silicon Chip. You can view 37 of the 104 pages in the full issue, including the advertisments. For full access, purchase the issue for $10.00 or subscribe for access to the latest issues. Items relevant to "Remote Volume Control & Preamplifier Module; Pt.1":
Items relevant to "Simple Variable Boost Control For Turbo Cars":
Items relevant to "Fuel Cut Defeater For The Boost Control":
Items relevant to "Low-Cost 50MHz Frequency Meter; Mk.2":
Purchase a printed copy of this issue for $10.00. |
SILICON
CHIP
www.siliconchip.com.au
Publisher & Editor-in-Chief
Leo Simpson, B.Bus., FAICD
Production Manager
Greg Swain, B.Sc.(Hons.)
Technical Editor
Peter Smith
Technical Staff
John Clarke, B.E.(Elec.)
Ross Tester
Jim Rowe, B.A., B.Sc, VK2ZLO
Reader Services
Ann Jenkinson
Advertising Enquiries
Glyn Smith
Phone (02) 9939 3295
Mobile 0431 792 293
glyn<at>siliconchip.com.au
Regular Contributors
Brendan Akhurst
Rodney Champness, VK3UG
Kevin Poulter
Mike Sheriff, B.Sc, VK2YFK
Stan Swan
SILICON CHIP is published 12 times
a year by Silicon Chip Publications
Pty Ltd. ACN 003 205 490. ABN 49
003 205 490 All material copyright
©. No part of this publication may
be reproduced without the written
consent of the publisher.
Printing: Hannanprint, Noble Park,
Victoria.
Distribution: Network Distribution
Company.
Subscription rates: $89.50 per
year in Australia. For overseas
rates, see the subscription page in
this issue.
Editorial office: Unit 1, 234 Harbord
Rd, Brookvale, NSW 2100.
Postal address: PO Box 139,
Collaroy Beach, NSW 2097.
Phone (02) 9939 3295.
Fax (02) 9939 2648.
E-mail: silicon<at>siliconchip.com.au
ISSN 1030-2662
* Recommended and
maximum price only.
2 Silicon Chip
Publisher’s Letter
Let’s not vacillate on
nuclear power
Just over a year ago, in the January 2006 issue,
I wrote in the Publisher’s Letter that Australia
should build nuclear power stations. Furthermore,
I advocated that it be used to power the proposed
desalination plant in Sydney.
Well, the political climate has certainly changed
since then! The New South Wales Government
has back-tracked on the desalination plant, in the
forlorn hope that it would rain enough to fill the
dams. Didn’t happen, did it? But on a more positive
note, the Federal Government commissioned a report from Ziggy Switkowski,
on “Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy”. This 294-page report
has just been released and the omens are generally favourable to nuclear power.
Having read the report, I can summarise it in the following way: Uranium
mining is generally safe and worthwhile for Australia and we should produce
more of it; Uranium processing is very expensive and we shouldn’t touch it
with a barge pole and finally, Nuclear Power is safe but much more expensive
than Australia’s existing coal-fired power stations. It will never be competitive
with coal-fired power stations unless a substantial carbon tax is levied on them.
There seems to be little doubt about the first part: we should export more
uranium to other countries. The second part also seems indubitable – so don’t
process in Australia. The third part is more questionable – should we bother
with nuclear power if we have to artificially make coal power more expensive
to make nuclear power viable? I suggest that is the wrong question. The Federal
Government is unlikely to bring in a carbon tax on all coal-fired power stations
just to make nuclear power stations viable and nor should it. Rather, if nuclear
power stations are to be built, to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions,
the Government should make a policy decision that nuclear power stations will
be part of the national grid and will be able to sell their higher-cost electricity
to it – just as higher-cost wind power already is. Consumers will pay more but
they are likely to pay more in the future, whether we have nuclear power stations or not.
Having said that, some of the assumptions in the Report seem questionable.
For example, Australia’s electricity demand is estimated to double by 2050,
even though energy consumption per unit of GDP is declining. Furthermore, as
stated in the Report, “consumption is expected to grow at around 2 per cent per
year to 2030. The bulk of the electricity will continue to used in industry and
commerce but domestic consumption is also expected to increase”.
In effect, the Report says that electricity consumption will continue to grow
inexorably and there will be no real drive for businesses and households to reduce their power use. So will we continue to waste ever more power? I suggest
that if water consumption in all Australian cities can be drastically curtailed by
stringent restrictions but little in the way of economic sanctions (ie, price rises),
then there must be enormous scope for reductions in electricity consumption over
the next 40-odd years, with no reduction in economic output or living comfort.
Think about it: the majority of households could undoubtedly be re-designed
to provide just as much, if not more, living comfort while using substantially less
energy. This has been done on a very large scale in Europe and the USA. And
undoubtedly, most businesses could affect major savings in electricity consumption if they really had to, because of higher prices or restrictions.
So by all means let’s build some nuclear power stations to provide base load
power while reducing our overall greenhouse gas emissions. But let’s not just
continue to use electricity wastefully. Surely, we are more clever than that.
Leo Simpson
siliconchip.com.au
|