Thread: You think Australia has a Nuclear Future

Originally Posted by Grunt

The older I get the greener I become. I keep looking at the world and keep getting amazed at how fricked it really is.

I've decided that I'm going to power down. As SilentC says, it won't make a difference but at least I'll have some baked beans for someone to steal.

Chris

Can't really disagree with any of that..

By the way:

there are 442 "new clear" power plants operating around the world (over 100 in the US) producing nearly 370 000 MW of power and another 31 in construction.

there more NPP's commissioned 21-22 years ago than any other time in history ... hmm when was Cherobyl '86.

the cost of producing clean power from coal will triple our power bill (see this article from the Australian)

The info from Ockhams razor that I quoted above is here for those genuinely interested in alternatives

The average coal fired power station runs at about 31% efficiency.

... no opinion here just sime facts

An estimate of 60,000 deaths in the nuclear industry is certainly not trivial. But take a look at this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining

Admittedly estimates, but 20,000 deaths IN ONE YEAR in China ALONE in coal miners. This does not include deaths in the general population directly caused by illnesses caused by breathing the smoke and fumes from burning the stuff.

Makes me wonder if there are any figures on how many have died mining this stuff over the years??

Apparently (according to Auntie yesterday) the current and planned Nuke stations will exhaust the known supply of Uranium in about 9 years.

Johnny didn't tell you that.

You blokes are kidding yourselves if you think that we won't go to nukuler power AND your really playing with it if you think that Chernobyl is a good comparison to make to current plants. It's like comparing a sand castle to the Taj Mahal.

From what I've read, Nuclear power is the cheapest and cleanest power there is. I would have thought the Greenies would love it. It will stop the shyte we're currently putting into the atmosphere burning millions of tonnes of coal. Then again, logic and reasoning are not their strong suits are they?

Dan

OK all you anti-nuclear knowledgeable types, what's the go with Thorium then?

From what I gather, it's biggest drawback (apart from having a much safer "spent" form) is that it isn't particularly suitable for weapons-grade proliferation, which makes it a bit uncool in the only country that is allowed weapons of mass destruction, and why that particular country (see how diplomatic I am Moderator Zed?) is actually sponsoring work in Russia to see what gives.

As an aside, Australia does have about a quarter of the known reserves, so that could be a handy thing.

More info please!

cheers,

P

I used to worry that we would be leaving the future generations ....albeit those several hundred or thousands of years hence......nothing.

No water (global warming)

No fuel ( excessive use)

No arable land (urbanisation)

No fertile women or men (tight underpants)

No large herbivores ( food shortages)

No means of transport (as no fuel)

No hairy wombats, whales nor any large creatures that generate visual sympathetic pains on television left alive ( David Attenborough retires)

No Africans ( Aids)

But the reality is that the human race is really resiliant and just as intelligent humans built the pyramids around 5 thousand years ago and the Romans used cement for construction, I now firmly believe that future generations or a few pandemics will resolve the problem of power, population and all other concerns.

Yes, future generations will need to review their wasteful ways, but as the COST of goods and services increases, this will automatically happen. Look how a small increase in petrol has already altered the purchasing habits for new vehicles.....

Ou current stupid concerns will be resolved in time

Coal will run out in around a thousand or so years, so that will solve that problem.

Nuclear fuel will go fusion, so that will solve that problem.

We will begin to breed whales and hairy wombats so that will solve that problem.

Wood is a renewable resource and loves carbon dioxide, so that's OK for global warming.

Men and women will still seek to breed, but the breeding herd will limit the quantity of progeny, so over-population will be resolved as well.

What's the worry???

(Though I guess I will still worry about lawyers and where to dig for gold or find red cedar.... I mean a man's got to have something to amuse him at 3.00 am in the morning)

Greg

One of the arguments that is always used against nuclear power is the matter of waste.

Can anyone tell us what quantity of waste we are talking about. How much waste does a nuclear power station generate in say one year?


Peter.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

One of the arguments that is always used against nuclear power is the matter of waste.


Peter.

Build a waste dump at Nimbin

Nuclear is not perfect, but I think it is the lesser of two evils (nuclear vs Fossil) - yes kiddies, solar, wind, geothermal, tide etc are not going to provide base load anytime soon. Look, for every bad statistic about nuclear energy, someone can and has sited a bad statistic about fossil fuel. Neither are perfect. People have got to get it through their thick skulls that we (life on this island in space) have a date with a radically different world if we do not kerb our use of fossil fuels. Nuclear is currently the only viable, fully contained energy source able to provide base load. Newer nuclear powerplants generate very little waste. Comparing the Chernobyl reactor with modern reactors is like comparing the model T Ford with the Toyota Prius.
I imagine this argument like lying in a bed with a gangrenous foot contemplating what future I have. If someone said hey, you can just lay there and do nothing and your future is assured, or we can take it off, you'll have a bit of pain for a while maybe you won't be able to walk, but then again you will still be around and who knows what the future holds? Perhaps someone will perfect a bionic foot that's even better than the old one. By which I mean, embrace nuclear fission, it might be the only thing that gets us to a better energy source such as fusion... At which point it should be abandoned.

Cheers
Michael

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

OK all you anti-nuclear knowledgeable types, what's the go with Thorium then?

P

From the link;

Thorium can also be used as a nuclear fuel through breeding to uranium-233 (U-233).

mmmmmmmmmm........mood music, some essential oils, go you dirty little buggers

Originally Posted by DanP

Nuclear power is the cheapest and cleanest power there is.

Seems debatable, as only the actual energy production stage is...getting the plant and fuel there isn't, or the waste, maintenance and retiring of it. It takes energy to get it there. Sounds to me like it takes some getting rid of. Being a practical sort of guy, my take is that the wind won't stop, the sun won't stop shining, regardless of how much we use. I know I'd rather recycle a wind turbine than a nuclear power plant!:eek:
I think your assertion that Chernobyl is old/poor technology is the nearest you come to a reasonable argument Dan, the last bit about Greenies(environmentalists) is way biased, a very prejudiced view I would have thought. I won't continue with what I was going to say.

Keep debating, without the cr*p.

Regards,

sturdee i heard they produce about 1 tonne of waste per year.

i remeber watching some show on teeve and they said that there was less than 100kg of "waste" aropund the joint, however this could be propoganda. either way its not that much physically - I still reckon send it to the sun....