Fullscreen HTML5Med Res (??MB)HTML4

SILICON SILIC CHIP www.siliconchip.com.au Publisher & Editor-in-Chief Leo Simpson, B.Bus., FAICD Production Manager Greg Swain, B.Sc. (Hons.) Technical Editor John Clarke, B.E.(Elec.) Technical Staff Ross Tester Jim Rowe, B.A., B.Sc Nicholas Vinen Photography Ross Tester Reader Services Ann Morris 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 Stan Swan Dave Thompson 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 is 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: $105.00 per year in Australia. For overseas rates, see our website or the subscriptions 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 Publisher’s Letter Nuclear power is the answer Back in February 2013 we published a feature article by Dr David Maddison on the historic Rubicon hydroelectric power station in Victoria which is actually still running today after being completed in 1929. At the end of that article, the author commented about the comparable costs of hydroelectric versus nuclear power. It was a logical comment but it triggered a letter to the Mailbag pages in the April 2013 issue from one reader who decried the thousands of deaths and environmental damage due to the nuclear power stations and associated disasters. In fact, I added a comment to that letter which contradicted some of what he said but that was not enough to mollify informed readers who vehemently disagreed with the letter’s content. We have featured three of their letters in the Mailbag pages of this issue and they all emphasise the exceptional safety record of nuclear power stations, notwithstanding the events at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. Fukushima has obviously triggered some wildly illogical decisions in Europe, the most notable being the decision by the German government to decommission all of its nuclear power stations. They need to make up the shortfall in electricity generation by burning more coal and natural gas. Not only is this increasing electricity costs to German consumers but it means that there is more air pollution and greatly increased output of that dreaded carbon dioxide which supposedly leads to inexorable global warming. Well, only those people who have been hunkered down in a cave (presumably unheated) would not realise that the nexus between rising carbon dioxide and global warming has been seriously challenged. But if decisions to close nuclear power stations are illogical, what is happening to the huge Drax coal-fired power station in England utterly beggars belief. Due to the need for the UK to comply with EU directives about “carbon pollution”, it has become uneconomic for the Drax power station to burn coal. They use 36,000 tonnes of it every day. Big problem. But they can burn biomass. It is much more expensive but they can get government subsidies because burning biomass supposedly comes under the heading of “renewable energy”. Never mind the fact that taxpayers have to pay for this. So what sort of biomass will Drax be burning? Wood! Yes, they are going to import millions of tonnes of wood from the USA! Utterly bizarre! All of which makes Australian governments’ various measures to combat global warming seem almost sane by comparison. Except that they are not sane or sensible. It is doubtful whether all the measures put in place, including the substantial subsidies to solar and wind power, have had any significant effect on Australia’s overall emissions of carbon dioxide. Sure, overall electricity consumption has dropped a little but that is probably more a result of consumers reducing electricity usage in response to rising prices than any other factor. We now have the situation in Australia where virtually all our existing coal-fired power stations are getting to the point where they need to be replaced or upgraded. But there does not appear to be any plan for this from the various state governments. Nor is there any incentive for private enterprise to build or upgrade new coal-fired power stations. Soon, that will have to change. Hopefully, with the election of a new government in a few months’ time, there will be a change so that serious planning can be done for new power generation. And given the known environmental drawbacks of coal-mining and coal-fired power stations, that planning must include nuclear power stations to provide base-load power. No-one should be under the illusion that Australia’s base-load electricity can be provided by solar and wind power. Let the debate begin. Leo Simpson Recommended and maximum price only. 2  Silicon Chip siliconchip.com.au