The nuclear disarmament commission the Rudd government announced last year is having a meeting, and apparently progress is slow. Apparently Steven Smith has offended the delicate sensibilities of the Iranian delegation (a country whose nuclear enrichment program continues to expand) by comparing them to North Korea (who, incidentally, are now claiming they have an enrichment program after all, to go with their previously demonstrated plutonium bomb).
More seriously, according to Daniel Flitton, Japan, one of the two co-sponsors of the commission, can’t even agree with the majority of members on a fairly fundamental, basic point – the principle of “no first use”:
The panel is locked in difficult debate. Most members want to recommend limits be placed on the threat to use nuclear weapons as a step towards eventual disarmament. The plan is to challenge the nuclear-armed countries to agree that they will only use their weapons when confronted by direct nuclear threat.
Ironically, Japan, which has a pacifist constitution and is the only country to suffer a nuclear attack, is arguing nuclear weapons should be remain an option in the face of major conventional threats, at least for now.
Flitton argues that this is due to Japanese fears of the possibility of a conventional attack. It can’t be that simple: Japan faces no enemies who could realistically mount a conventional threat to the country, for decades to come. Japan’s short-term security threats include nuclear missiles launched at it from North Korea, and the possible long-term rise of the Chinese military (who already have a nuclear deterrent of their own; the use of nuclear weapons to respond to a conventional threat by China would therefore be suicidal).
It’s worth reading the entire article, including what can only be described as a modest proposal by Robert Ayson – that Australia consider publicly renouncing the American nuclear deterrent.
Thanks for the links Robert.
Of course Japan is perfectly entitled to make an argument for first use in the face of overwhelming conventional force, it’s essentially – amongst other things – the position that the International Court of Justice took on the question decades ago. But rather than getting too hung up on the morality of first use, perhaps this argument should highlight for us the wider issue of the need for comprehensuve conventional arms limitation.
Ayson’s role as agent provocateur is a quite nice counterpoint to suggestions elsewhere (I think it was on LP that someone linked a Lowy Institute paper) that in a world which now freely ignores the non-proliferation treaty Australia may need to consider developing its own nuclear deterrent.
Further Ayson adds:
[After all, Smith made the obvious point during his lecture that no country is currently seeking to coerce Australia with its military power, either nuclear or conventional. So, why keep the deterrent?
Perhaps having an ally such as Australia step out from the umbrella is the type of bold step needed for a nuclear-free world.]
One can dream.
What kind of progress would non-nuclear nations be expected to make? The only states that can really get rid of the nukes are ones with nukes in the end. Not that it’s not worth making noise about. Nukes are unusuable, if you’re rational and fighting a nuke equipped state. Iran and N Korea aren’t exactly brimming over with rational leadership.
.
But then if I was an Iranian leader I would want Nukes because Israel has them.
.
And if I was Kim Jong-il I would want nukes because I’ve been born and bred a power-hungry monster.
The US Special Envoy for North Korea has responded to the claims by the North of an enrichment program, including the following:
‘N Korean enrichment claim ‘concerning”
Really?
Wouldn’t complete denuclearisation include shutting down the nuclear power reactors in the South? I didn’t realise this was being considered as part of the 6 party talks.
Rewi, I presume the US envoy meant: no reactors, North or South, which are not subject to IAEA inspections and safeguards. (And no unsupervised uranium enrichment.)
Yes, Paulus, I suspect you’re correct. Either that or when he says ‘Korean peninsula’ he means that bit of it above the Demilitarized Zone.
Japan only has a pacifist constitution because it was forced upon them by MacArthur.
There are still plenty of Japanese who think war is just awesome.
“Japan’s short-term security threats include nuclear missiles launched at it from North Korea, and the possible long-term rise of the Chinese military (who already have a nuclear deterrent of their own; the use of nuclear weapons to respond to a conventional threat by China would therefore be suicidal).”
Perhaps I am missing something here. But isn’t the point that retaining the nuclear option in the face of conventional attack reduces the probability of a conventional attack in the first place? That is an important reason why a number of non-western countries have sought to acquire nuclear capability is it not?
I strongly doubt that nuclear disarmament will occur. I just don’t think it is a stable equilibrium.
Labor Outsider, that would seem to be the point of the use of the word ‘deterrent’, yes. It’s not just about deterring the use of nuclear weapons. The ICJ was asked to give an Advisory Opinion on whether it was legal to use nuclear weapons, and specifically addressed issues to do with deterrance, threats and use.
I would disagree with Robert only to the extent that Japan does face a conventional threat in North Korea, just not one of significant magnitude to meet what are fairly stringent conditions for legal use of nukes. The Court cast the level of conventional force required as that posing a threat to the very survival of the state.
Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, if the ban on first use is passed now, though, how likely is it that it could be reversed in the ‘decades to come’ if/when Japan does face conventional forces of such magnitude? Isn’t it the responsibility of states to consider long-term strategic needs, not just contemporary needs?
The other thing I would point out Rewi is that there is sometimes there is a tendency to think of threats in a way that is too short-term. The argument ends up being along the lines of “I see no obvious threat from X now, so I can plan my defense strategy around it staying that way”. That can be dangerous given how quickly external circumstances can change. Deterrents are as much about contingency plans for as yet unforseen threats as they are about threats known and understood….
So I am in sympathy with your devil’s advocacy….
The problem is that all the information required to build nuclear weapons could be fitted on a very small memory device that would be easy to hide. In addition, the amount of nuclear explosive required to build something should also be easy enough to hide. So, even if all nuclear weapons were destroyed, we haven’t really got rid of the threat of nuclear war. Think about it. It only took a few years to develop and use the first nuclear weapon – How long would it take a modern technology to build one now even without detailed plans?
Unfortunately, our best bet for avoiding nuclear war may actually be to retain enough nuclear weapons to deter any country from having a go. I am talking about a limited number of well guarded weapons, preferrably under the control of the relatively sane.
Rewi and LO: I take the point that you have to look at things in the long term. But Japan is a numerically large, rich country which maintains a large, well-equipped military known for its engineering industries. While North Korea remains the hermit kingdom, their ability to acquire conventional advanced weaponry that represents a threat over the Sea of Japan is essentially nil.
The idea that Japan could face a conventional threat of the magnitude that would justify a nuclear response simply doesn’t pass muster.
South Korea is a different story, though the North’s conventional forces are so close to the that any use of tactical nukes by the USA in defence of the South would probably result in dangerous levels of fallout in downtown Seoul.
Japan’s only plausible conventional threat is a maritime blockade.
For what it’s worth, on the ultimate question of complete nuclear disarmament, I don’t think it’s possible either. They can’t be uninvented, and if they didn’t exist equivalently destructive weapons (advanced biological, chemical, or even nanotechnological weapons) would be invented and leave the world less safe than it is now. But the USA and Russia, particularly, could do with a lot fewer weapons than they have now.
These terribly brief snide remarks about other countries serves the subject matter with nothing,the ALP without a blogging sense of rational uptake,and Nuke countries ,thinking what is it about Australian bloggers!?The UN. recently declared the Iranian potential for weapons is but the utter nonsenses ,one could expect from those who love their power,those who side with that power,and those who think Israeli Society is sane,motivated and without big fibs in its determinations about any country that has no choice,as yet, but be an enemy of Israel.I think the Iranian Government is completely sane,consistent,and as trustworthy,if not more than trustworthy about weapons than Israel will ever be.Other criticism of Iranian leadership and Parliamentarians is open to debate ,if based on whatever factual accounts,rather than speculation and interpretation make of them.Japan,maybe more seriously concerned about these matters,than snide and unmentioning facts of where the country Japan sits.Giving China a sense,in such statements that Japan doesn’t need or want,China,Russia [North Korea, less so] even as an enemy or enemies as nuke weapons countries.Maybe even the land of major bullshit bombs as well,U.S.A.If Australia is to be respected and heard,it cannot cater to the bullshit artists rendering any other truth to the Beast.Japan is entirely trustworthy on this. Australia getting a nuke weapon is probably very easy,in the sense,of buying them off the Yanks.Although a Russian auction would invariably be cheaper.I think Australian leadership is really immature on this subject.And if Australia had the weapon even more so,and destabilizing to the rest of the world.Iran is really easy,intellectually proficient,and as a country copping the Friends of Israel shit,is acting extremely intelligent.If the Parliamentarians sing or chat “Death to Israel”,one can be sure this is the end result of provocation,not a complete disenchantment with the more enlarged Jewish Diaspora.I don’t know why the Iranians, just dont let their soccer players go round the world winning,as their chant “Death to Israel” could easily be accomplished by destroying Israeli soccer teams at every oppurtunity,even,if they aren’t in love with the Government.Same here in OZ.I have seen Australian Government people at Football games,and considering the endless enemy making Israel engages in,nothing different.In fact,we could put the Israelis and Iranians to test,by sending in the Aussie Parliament Soccer team,in a three way contest.As a social game,and not to embarass anyone at all.If Australians are not going to take this subject fairly by being detailed and suggestive,then why not something else,besides snide unhelpful remarks.
Nukes are bad.
Paragraphs are good.
Readers like paragraphs. Oh, yes. We do.
Robert, I was thinking of a conventional attack from China, not from North Korea…IMHO Japan’s nuclear capability is a deterrent to both a conventional and non-conventional attack from China…
Hard to disagree that the US and Russia could do with fewer weapons, but as long as there are enough to ensure mutual destruction, is the number beyond that a merely a second order concern?
Philip, Please develop a paragraph enrichment program!!!!
And a space or two after the full stop!
ANU strategic affairs specialist Robert Ayson captures the problem neatly: ”Does Australia really want the sort of deep nuclear disarmament which would remove America’s ability to extend deterrence to Australia, and to others, including a nervous Japan?”
Living under the nuclear umbrella has been just one more way for Australia to have defence on the cheap. It would be nice to think that both Defence and Treasury boffins were ‘wargaming’ (sorry) what shrinking the umbrella would actually mean for our economy ie how much resources do we need to spend on defence withouut it?
Make your own, control your own, then you are.
Thought provoking stuff Robert. Particularly in regards to Iran & North Korea.
And the role of Japan.
N’
Robert Merkel Says:
That would end the ANZUS alliance and put us on a par with New Zealand, “the strategic dagger poised to plunge into the heart of the Antarctic” (CINPAC).
All for what, a symbolic bit of feel-good grandstanding.
Typical bit of Left-wing street theatre.
Jack, I think Ayson was making A Modest Proposal.
As for the effect of Australia removing itself from the “nuclear umbrella”, the “wargame” doesn’t take very long. As I understand it, the nuclear umbrella comes as a package deal with the American alliance. Abandoning that is a political non-starter in Australia.
Two problems with this Modest Proposal:
(a) You can’t give up what you don’t have. ANZUS, remember, only involves a vague promise to “consult” in the case of attack. The positioning of Australia under the US nuclear umbrella is essentially an expression of hope on the part of Australian leaders. How do you renounce a hope?
(b) Non-proliferation would arguably be better served by bringing more, not less, countries within the nuclear security guarantees of the major powers. This could be accomplished even while the big powers reduce their stockpiles down to only a few hundred or so.
For example, maybe, just maybe, Israel could be persuaded to deliver some transparency on its arsenal, and slowly begin reducing it, in exchange for an explicit US nuclear guarantee.
Would the Brents and Sparrows define their accomplishments in understanding the subject matter in ways that totally ensure they have meaning other than the Deft! For if you are that smart in deciding the presentation of my opinion loses merit by what you see are the inadequacy of presentation,I will claim innocence. I have looked at a Mushroom Cloud,and understood the Japanese rather than the Americans.So I dare say,I am puny in presentation to that old knob of a Bomb.Politely,I say…G…F….If I spoke Japanese,I would then ask you if the two last words without key alphabet symbols is up to your eyeball analysis,if you heard said words via your ears! I practice throat singing, against fully grown bulls with balls still in place.Do better.There maybe, a Japanese citizen ready willing and able to drown you two out as fair game!
Nuclear weapons are fleas on the dog of nuclear power. Any country that installs uranium based nuclear reactors has the means to acquire the bomb. People can go on about little safe green painted ones but they are not the ones they are building in Indonesia – for example.
Huggy.
huggy
the sneaky bedeekys would have it that nukeleer is the CC solution.
Why i can see it now, a land of milk and honey where tranquil nuke reactors inadvertenly cause a minimal carbon footprint,whilst stridently solving the looming global energy/climate catastrophe.
Nations everywhere teeming with teh solution to all the worlds ills,and the symbiotic relationship with the weapon’s side is purely the consequence of society ‘adavancing’.
progress dammit man,progress is the word
Paulus, I very much doubt that.
Huggy, using spent LWR fuel is a very hard way to make a nuclear weapon. If we look at how actual proliferators do their thing it’s through uranium enrichment or dedicated plutonium production reactors, not through LWR power reactors.
I’ve long wondered about the efficacy of nuclear weapons, at least in the hands of the big states. Realistically, being the first to use a nuclear weapon seems in the modern age, unthinkable.
No state that was really going to use one would hint that they were — they’d just do it, but of course, once you use them, there goes your leverage — which is really what the weapon is for. So having nuclear wepons is like a perverse game of bluff.
It seems to me that weapons that others can actually anticipate you deploying and which create an escalatable harm are probably better for weapons-based diplomacy.
Small states with rather eccentric and apparently half nutty leaders of course are in a different position. They can’t afford this kind of military so they are like the guy with the bomb strapped to his chest. For them a nuke might actually make sense, if the rationale is to parry external threats.
Conclusion: the big powers can’t really use nuclear weapons and could abolish them tomorrow, and then work on de-escalating tensions that drive small powers to acquire them
Nukes are following the iron law of technology — things become easier to manufacture over time.
Eventually, the technology will fall into the hands of entities that believe that they have far more to gain than to lose from actually deploying a nuke.
I hope I’m not around when that happens.
For our younger readers, the future is yours. Enjoy it.
Yet the Ruddites are happy to sell U overseas so that these countries can divert U fron other sources into their nuke program.
Hyporcrites
Katz: Nukes, thankfully, will always require a substantial technical and logistical capacity to build.
For one thing, you need to mine and refine a substantial amount of uranium ore into yellowcake.
From there, you can either:
a) build a nuclear reactor to make plutonium and extract it. A reactor of sufficient size to churn out bombs is a large industrial project, and very hard to hide (ask Syria). You then have a quite difficult design and manufacturing task to fabricate a bomb.
b) Build a uranium enrichment plant, presumably using gas centrifuges. You first have to convert uranium into uranium hexafluoride gas (yes, that’s right, you have to work with fluorine gas, the most reactive element there is). Just to give an idea of the precision manufacturing required, the Iranian centrifuge program apparently suffered several failures until they started to wear gloves to handle the rotors; the deposits of oil from the workers’ fingers were enough to unbalance the rotors and cause them to explode at full speed. However, once you have highly enriched uranium in significant quantities, building a bomb is trivial.
Sure, some bits of the process are getting easier, but it is not something you can do in your back shed, and won’t be for a long time to come.
Pete of Perth, the NPT nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, UK, France, China) haven’t manufactured more bomb-grade uranium or plutonium for a long time. They don’t need to; they have far more of the stuff sitting around than they actually bother to fabricate into bombs.
We don’t sell uranium to India, the only nuclear weapons state whose weapons program is actually in any way affected by a shortage of raw material.
By far the greatest threats of a nuclear weapon being used in anger are as follows:
a) A Pakistani weapon being stolen or handed over to Islamic radicals of some kind or other.
b) Somebody stealing some of the highly-enriched uranium stockpiled in a variety of places, sometimes without adequate safeguards, and fabricating it into a bomb.
c) Either the North Koreans or Israelis having a bad day; some time in the next few years you’ll probably be able to Iran to that list, but they’re not there yet.
None of these have anything at all to do with Australian uranium exports.
Nuclear umbrella?
More like a shroud, if you ask me.
People have forgotten the horror of these things. They’re terror weapons, pure and simple. If people like Curtis LeMay and Arthur Harris can be fairly described as war criminals, what moniker are we to apply to someone who uses a nuke?
I say tell the Yanks: Thanks, but no thanks.
New Zealand had the guts to do so a couple of decades past and, so far at least, the Yellow Peril (or whoever the threat du jour is these days) haven’t invaded the place.
“..Conclusion: the big powers can’t really use nuclear weapons and could abolish them tomorrow, and then work on de-escalating tensions that drive small powers to acquire them… ”
*
*
Yes, and there are fairies at the bottom of my garden.
People have forgotten the horror of these things. They’re terror weapons, pure and simple. If people like Curtis LeMay and Arthur Harris can be fairly described as war criminals, what moniker are we to apply to someone who uses a nuke?
Under most circumstances, a mass murderer.
That said, I think what ultimately matters is the amount of death and misery inflicted by war, not whether that death and misery is inflicted by nuclear weapons, helicopter gunships, or rifles and machetes (which, to pick one example, were used to kill a million-odd civilians in Rwanda over a three month period).
For all their potential horror, since the invention of nuclear weapons we have had a period in which all-out warfare between the major powers has ceased, which is historically very unusual. For all their horrors, I reckon there is a very strong case that nuclear weapons are the major reason for this.
So if you want to make the case for their abolition, you’d better think very, very hard about how we’re going to maintain the peace.
There have been people who have considered the topic (see here, for instance). The preconditions they identify for complete abolition are so far from the current state of the world that the only realistic conclusion is that it’s not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.
This being Father’s Day I will not impugn the malign products of the back shed.
I wasn’t actually suggesting that the neighbourhood brewers’ club would whip up a nuke.
If a starving backwater like North Korea can manufacture nukes any nation can. Of much greater concern than Upper Volta developing its own armageddon weapon is to whom a nation like North Korea or for that matter Israel (think of some Third Temple maniacs with an eye to eternity and some friends on the inside) may be willing to donate a spare nuke or two.
Is this Japan speaking on America’s behalf? Also, will their position change with the new government?
Yobbo is, as ever, completely wrong.
If experience is any guide at all the US would have no qualms at all about nuking a state that could not retaliate in kind. (Japan)
When the “manifast destiny” is to lead the world, have the worlds largest prison population and 50 million of your people without any health care and to completely destroy rape and loot in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan would it really stop at nuking Iran, for exmple, if it had a plausible excuse?
What’s this about nuclear weapons bringing peace FFS?
Huggy
Huggsome
I think the argument is that nuclear weapons deter nuclear war. Robert Merkel has mentioned the huge losses inflicted in recent decades by machetes and rifles, helicopter gunships, etc.
War-making involves many means, machines, tactics and practices, does it not?
[What’s this about nuclear weapons bringing peace FFS?]
Huggy,the nukes are mostly owned by the “nice people” who are also our “betters”
did you not know nuclear has provided the cure for cancer,solved world hunger and made sure children brush their teeth at night.
Why i have even heard it will solve all our Climate change and Global warming problems.
Why cant people just luv the bomb,I mean it has never done ‘em harm has it?
gusface, that is reassuring thanks.
Nuclear weapons are not simply an extension of conventional weapons , they are qualitatively different I think there would be general agreement upon this.
This leads to a terrible logic.
If you want to nuke a country and a people you have to nuke them to a state where they are unable to ever retaliate or you have to occupy them forever, as in Japan.
I suspect that this is the only thing keeping the US from a nuclear strike on Iran. Occupation is impossible and a “warning” strike would invite retaliation for a thousand years. Same goes for other “rogue” states.
If a total idiot such as Sarah Palin ever gets into the white house leave the planet immediately.
Huggy
Huggybunny,
Well, yes, but I would say that nuclear weapons are developed and owned by certain states not just for the purposes of use, but in order to allow them to control the terms of conventional war in a variety of theatres of war. Nuclear weapons give states the power to trump their opponents and prevent wild escalation. That is, I would argue, the quite strong link between nuclear and conventional weapons.
As for a first use strike by the US on Iran… perhaps someone else who knows about such things would care to comment on the likelihood of this.
Exceptionally unlikely.
I could give you any of a dozen reasons why it’s not going to happen, but the simplest one is that it would guarantee Obama loses the next presidential election.
Obviously I’d like to believe that was so, but while I can’t imagine for a second that Obama would consider such a course, I’m not so sure that electoral backlash would be a factor. A lot of rightwingers would love him to pull something like that and I’d be surprised if the Repugs could come up with a critical response.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think for a moment that Obama would do it either. He may not be the raging lefty we might like, but he’s not a moron or a thug like the last occupant of his office.
But to see just how unlikely it is it’s worth doing a thought experiment. Even ignoring the global reaction for a moment, imagine the domestic US political reaction. Much of the Democratic Party would (rightly) go insane. Under the circumstances, I can’t see how Obama could win his party’s primary, let alone the general election. Heck, he’d probably get impeached.
It would probably split the Dems with the Blue Dogs and hawkish indies and repugs being attracted and the left feeling disenfranchised.
Much would depend on how well the sold the excuse for doing it and of course the scope of the attack — a nuclear or military facility, small scale nuke etc
Always assuming Obama is the president at the time. I hope for his sake that his personal security is better than the Kennedy’s.
Biden would not be able to contain the exultation of the right, the US could be torn apart and in the process go totally insane.
That’s the problem with the theory that the possession of nuclear weapons has a moderating influence. It presupposes that the controllers of the weapons are basically sane and rational.
We should fear US Imperial adventures but we should fear the disintegration of the imperial war machine even more.
Huggy
considering that some feel that disarmanent is impossible, may i throw into the mix some examples of impossibles becoming possible
1.man on the moon
2.tearing down of the berlin wall
3.collapse of communism
5.hydrogen power
you get the gist, it is whether you have the vision or are blinkered by ideology/fear.
Gusface@47
Re: your impossible dream list
None of the first three things (I’m allowing the term “communism” in parentheses) was even improbable. Certainly by 1980 the decrepit Comecon/Warsaw Pact regimes looked an unlikely prospect of surviving the decade. Their plant was ageing, they were suffering from hard currency shortages and when the USSR began an expensive and futile incursion into Afghanistan it was clear that the end would come pretty quickly. I was surprised they hadn’t collapsed by 1985.
That’s not to say that one could know what would replace the regimes or how it would play out, though even here I wasn’t the least bit surprised at the course things took.
Hydrogen power is technically possible but highly improbable, on economic and infrastructure grounds.
So fran, all my history books and geoploitical tracts from the timewere totally wrong,maybe they should have asked you.
ps when did you launch your moon mission
pps re hydrogen LOL
Maybe you should have asked me …
Not sure what you’re saying about the moon mission. The US was miffed at being beaten into space by them damned Russkies and so they were always going to spend whatever it took to get there.
What’s your claim on H2?
Yeah gusface what do you mean by “hydrogen power” ?
Ummm mmmmmmmm
Where do I start
Fran
with hindsight we are all experts,perhaps yu could provide ,contemporary with the times , that my assertions were merely improbable not impossible.
clue Try 1950 for moon mission
TRy 1970 for berlin wall,collapse of communism
Try 1980 for hydrogen power
Huggy–This
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s534768.htm
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/first-hydrogen-power-plant-in-italy/
huggy for some reason my post was deleted??
anyhoo
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/first-hydrogen-power-plant-in-italy/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy
huggy
third time lucky
try googling ‘hydrogen power”
apparently Italy has commissioned its’ first plant
I just read gusface’s link. Apparently it uses waste hydrogen from the Venice lagoon petrochemical plant. Hardly a breakthrough.
Tim M@53
True
Unless hydrogen can be rolled out at industrial scale at acceptable cost and acceptable CO2 footprint and implemented in usages where CO2 is significant why do we care?
wow
the sense of the future shown here is wonderful
I hope those naysayers never have their hands on a research bodies funding
sheesh with your attitude we would still be in caves
Oh that hydrogen.
I am all for technological progress, its how I make a living, but the hydrogen economy?
Pipe Hydrogen gas to every home and install a fuel cell with the waste heat providing hot water?
That sort of fantasy?
Or some-how dodge the laws of thermodynamics and get hydrogen from water for zero energy?
There are industrial processes that should use hydrogen in reduction processes such as steel making but that’s about it. Hydrogen fuel cell cars? Noo. Battery powered electric vehicles with fuel cell range extenders – maybe.
I worked on R&D into hydrogen systems for years it is total shite, low energy density and about as explosive as you can get.
If you want a hydrogen fuel, try ammonia. Very good in a free piston engine.
Huggy
huggy
“Italy has come up with world’s first hydrogen power plant. This power plant is situated in Fusina, near Venice in the Veneto region of Italy. Enel is constructing this power plant producing no undesirable greenhouse gases. It is Italy’s largest power company with a track record of fifty million power and gas customers. Enel is procuring hydrogen from an accompanying production from Polimeri Europa’s petrochemical plant.”
alternative-energy-news.info/first-hydrogen-power-plant-in-italy/
I think that at least on this and other fronts people are trying to turn ‘fantasy’ into reality.
Not that H is the ONLY solution,just part of the renewables mix
“This power plant has a capacity of 12 megawatt and burns hydrogen gas in a turbine developed in partnership with General Electric.
We know that the only byproducts of the hydrogen fuel burning process are hot air and water vapor. These two are used to produce steam. This steam can be utilized by a coal-fired plant to produce another potential four megawatts of energy.”
huggy
alternative-energy-news.info/first-hydrogen-power-plant-in-italy
great article
ps i have tried to paste a bit from it,but the filter keeps chewing up my post?
gusface your post @ 52 had three links which automatically triggers the spam filter. I’ve let them all through and deleted the duplicates. The standing instruction is to email us if your post doesn’t appear.
Brian
I did email to vodkandlime
but apols nonetheless
Ah gusface, these things happen. You’ve exposed our fatal weakness of not having paid staff at the ready
Where does the hydrogen come from, gusface? Think about it.
Yes tim I read the article,but I am sure that as technology progresses and we take bigger steps,we will go to a full renewables fuel cycle for H.
I am just so happy that another one of the impossible/improbables has been overcome.
baby steps at this stage but didnt they say that about the I.C.E.
which is still only relatively new in the scheme of things
Well, after all of this I no longer feel that talk about conventional arms is too far off-topic.
Which brings me to post this:
‘US is world’s top arms dealer: report’
The line about the sales jumping ‘despite the global economic recession’ seems contrived, given the recession only really began in August 2008, but the fact that their sales jumped 50% on the previous year against the trend is interesting.
The thing is, gusface, the ‘fantasy’ part is the concept of the hydrogen economy – having the whole world using hydrogen as a principle source of heat, motive power etc.
It’s certainly possible to do these things with hydrogen, it’s just that for every potential application for hydrogen (e.g. energy storage, provision of heat, electricity, motive power, etc) there are other ways of achieving the same result that are almost always cheaper, more efficient and less technically complex.
It has nothing to do with ‘naysaying’ or wanting to live in caves – I am a technophile, mostly.
Anyway, it’s OT so I’m done on hydrogen on this thread.