<The Bullroarer - Friday 15 February 2008TOD: Australia/New ZealandQueensland Government Strategy to Reduce Oil Demand >

4 comments on Motion for peak oil select committee in South Australia

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

GRLCowan on February 15, 2008 - 1:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Forgetting all the other arguments I have about nuclear energy, it is not a solution because it is not an alternative to oil.

Perhaps because, so far, except for marine propulsion, it generates only electricity.

... as 1986 Professor Martin Green was saying that, with the solar technology we had, we could turn the roofs of our carports into solar collectors, put in an electric car, and we would have enough charge in our batteries to travel 80 kilometres -- which would allow most people to get to and from work every day. That is another possible solution.

Ah, so electricity is a possible oil substitute. As long as it's very high-cost electricity, i.e., an oil substitute that will not be used, and will not defund the oil interests.

This makes perfect sense: the so-to-speak honorable member is one of the oil interests because petroleum is heavily taxed in Australia. The lives nuclear energy might save would cost her money.

How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Big Gav on February 15, 2008 - 6:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Solar will be cheaper than nuclear in the not so distant future - its not really worth turning the clock back to the 1950's.

Given that South Australia his home to the world's largest uranium mine, you're on thin ice trying to spin it as a pro-oil / anti-nuclear location...

As for oil taxes making parliamentarians "oil interests", I really don't see the logic in this - making oil more expensive encourages substitutes - we should triple our fuel taxes.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.