Nuclear power - do we need it?

[39ClevoUte]

OZ Jav
Communities came about because although one individual can do what you said it is totally uneconomical for 30m Australians to produce and maintain their own solar, wind and compost systems. I agree that we should all do as much as possible to reduce waste, but ecomomies of scale means it's cheaper to all chip in and build a community/state/national power station / grid.

[39ClevoUte]

You give us the technology, we give you some uranium. What is cost anyway??

[turboute]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

a quick question ?? woud it be possible to . have a nuclear power plant or more in remote areas ( such as the nullibour plains) and supply electricity to major cities???
or must they be relatively close to the power usage.
this would change peoples minds , i'm sure.

The only problem would be the infrastructure to carry the power such a long way - I.e. buuilding powerlines to cope with the amount of electricity.

And the amount of power drop though those lines - the powerlines do have a resistance to electricity and they do use power because of it - if you have a power plant that far away it might use up so much power in the transfer of the electricity that you may as well have built 5 wind turbines on the coast near where the population is.

It would probably be more feasible to have the plant about 2-300kms away from the main centre - same as coal power stations like collie in WA (that is there because of the coal supply though)

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Could you do us a quick cost analysis of a country with a trade/current account deficit the size of Australias importing the technology to produce the majority of it's power?

Lol, current account deficit couldnt get much worse could it?? On the good side, the CAD is a subtraction from a nation's GDP so it may keep the inflation monster at bay

Would be nasty. Not only would we be importing the technology, i'd wager a bet that foreign investment would also fund the infrastructure.

*note to self* Go long on Aussie dollar!!

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

I am currently sitting on top of some 120m of coal which is 20m below the ground, whilst at my computer at uni.

Coal is everywhere here!

Anyhoo, our Latrobe Valley brown coal is inefficient due to its high water content, and we all know you can't burn water. There are three layers here, being the Yallourn, Morwell and Traralgon layers, which vary in age and quality. All have SFA sulphur content, and there's about 4% difference between the moisture contents, with the Traralgon layer coal being around 66% and the Yallourn layer coal being about 70%.

Now, we're sitting on top of a nice fat layer of coal which is roughly a couple of kilometres wide, averaging 120m in depth, close to the surface, and stretches out to somewhere near SALE, which is a good 30km away from Traralgon!

That is a lot of coal! Our outputs include large amounts of CO2 and H2O, with minimal fly ash. OK, so CO2 and H2O contribute to the greenhouse effect, this isn't an argument, it's fact, but people get all concerned about how much of an impact anthropogenic activities have on the climate. I say SFA.

For those who are concerned about our industrial CO2 outputs, have a think about this: The trees are big nasty CO2 outputters. OK, so they can photosynthesise when there's light, but they also need to respirate like us, so they breathe is back out again. Therefore trees cannot be seen as a CO2 sink, but moreso as a flux.

Also, you have the ocean. Now this is the biggest CO2 contributer/flux there is! Not to mention sulphur too... Ocean water contains carbonic acid and sulphur in the form of phytoplankton, which is pretty much the base of the food chain. These plankton respirate like us, and they contain sulphuric compounds. When they die, their carbon and sulphur compounds can be evaporated from the ocean's surface and become part of the atmosphere, as CO2 and SO2 after oxidation. These molecules can become acid rain under the right circumstances. Yes, natural acid rain. SO2 becomes sulphuric acid when it reacts with a water molecule (water vapour), and CO2 can become carbonic acid, although carbonic acid is not as common as sulphuric acid.

We need the greenhouse effect anyway, as it's related to the ozone layer, and without it the average temperature in the lower troposphere/surface would be around 33*C colder than what it is now. OK, so the boys with turbos will be loving punting around in -17*C weather with no heat soak problems, but I think it would suck having my balls somewhere up in my ribcage due to being so cold!

But back to the topic on hand: Nuclear power isn't bad. And our soils are geologically suited to storing spent rods. But as long as coal is cheaper, we should stick to that! There's more pollution in the city than there is out here in the valley.

Most renewable energy forms suck too. Wind and solar are simply unreliable.

Geothermal energy has some potential though! At least the energy would be constant, and there have been some commercial tests undertaken over the past two decades showing that it can be viable.

-Dave-

Some selective science here Dave

I agree planting trees is not the answer to C02 output from coal fired plants. Naturally occuring C02 producers, trees, plankton etc are not something we have real control over. Burning coal is something we can do something about.

I don't think the government are going to put you out of a job for a loooong time

[BA_Turbs]

Originally Posted by Casper

I find it amusing that logical, so called intellegent people are comparing the safety of a modern nuke power plant built in 2007 or 2008, with the latest equipment, technology and production proceedures, run by current computing power and multiple redundant failsafe proceedures and systems with a pushole Russian nuke plant built in the 70's by people who didnt give a a damn if they lived and dies so long as they got to feed their kids one more day before being shipped off to a Gulag somewhere.
Thats like comparing a 2007 S class Merc to a 1980 Lada Niva and saying they have the same risks and issues because they are both cars.

Brilliant post Casper.

The problem with polls like this are people are voting for and voicing what is, generally, an uneducated opinion. It's fantastic that people have a point of view and that is not stiffled (much) in our country, but if something like this issue were to come to a vote or reforendum, I think it would be critical that people learned what the truth and what are the myths about nuclear and even traditional fossil fuel power generation.

After all that crapping on, I voted yes.

[XRchic]

Originally Posted by BA_Turbs

Brilliant post Casper.

The problem with polls like this are people are voting for and voicing what is, generally, an uneducated opinion. It's fantastic that people have a point of view and that is not stiffled (much) in our country, but if something like this issue were to come to a vote or reforendum, I think it would be critical that people learned what the truth and what are the myths about nuclear and even traditional fossil fuel power generation.

After all that crapping on, I voted yes.

I agree with you mate.

Uneducated opinions are the problem with this country in relation to almost all issues, I think.

That is my uneducated opinion...

[Spotty]

Im amazed how we don't seem to have learned or lessons from the past. Nuclear power is such a short term solution. In terms of OUR home...OUR planet we should be coming up with the best long term solution. The nuclear waste wont be safe for hundreds of years and we need to think of the generations to come. I believe our plane can't sustain our wasteful lifestyle however business and industry won't accept a solution that may reduce our consumerism as it will drastically erode their profits. My rather radical solutions cenres around finding the most sensitive leverage points in our
buisness and lifestyle system. My radical solutions include:

Global govts increase the excise on fuel to take he price to $3 a litre. This to be phased in over the next 5 years.

Ramp up the users pays principle with water, electricity and gas

[Work Horse]

IMHO we are not going to see nuclear power plants take over from coal fired plants. There will be a mix of power sources, as there is now. What that mix is going to be is the question.

Australia is great at digging stuff up and selling it. This "debate", the government is getting us involved in is not about nuclear power plants for Australia. It is about digging up more uranium and processing it here in Australia.

[Ringo]

The is so irrelevant. Nuclear aint ever going to make it in conservative Australia and Howard knows it, hell we couldn't even break our ties with the Monarchy when given the chance.

Howard 'the media master' is just diverting media attention away from something (Timor, Liberal leadership, Labor Party, IR laws etc) or setting us up for some other agenda like increased Uranium mining and selling the stuff to India/China/US. Australia is the Saudi Arabia of Uranium. We are sitting on a fortune in natural resources and have enough of it to dictate supply and price to the rest of the world.

Howard has set Nuclear power up as being the media topic of the week. Wait and see where he goes with it.

Hey where's Peter Garrett and why hasn't he been rolled out to say a few words on the environment on behalf of the Labor party ????

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Some selective science here Dave

I agree planting trees is not the answer to C02 output from coal fired plants. Naturally occuring C02 producers, trees, plankton etc are not something we have real control over. Burning coal is something we can do something about.

I don't think the government are going to put you out of a job for a loooong time

I guess it is a little selective, writing off solar & wind power in one just line. But all the uneducated people around my area (I am not saying that you are uneducated) that whinge about how filthy power stations must be shut down and that (for example) wind turbines are the answer, they really grind my gears!

Let's assume (generously) that the average wind turbine has a peak output of 2MW. That would mean eight hundred turbines would be needed to replace Hazelwood. <-- I might have my figures wrong here, I'm basing this on the assumption that Hazelwood is a 1600MW plant.

Also, Hazelwood supplies only about 1/4 of Victoria's energy, so if all our coal plants were replaced with wind turbines, we would need around 2400 of these little buggers. And this is assuming that the wind comes from one direction and blows HARD all year around. And the only entities that blow hard all year around are those annoying militant greenies! :

The area required for all these turbines would be immense. As for environmental impact, you have noise pollution, visual pollution, and limited uses for the land the turbines would be placed upon.

OK, so I haven't touched upon solar, which would be far more reliable than wind, especially in the red centre, but I'm not that knowledgable about solar energy, apart from its low conversion factor, so I'll leave that one to others with a better idea.

-Dave-

PS I'm not part of the fossil fuel industry, I'm in the water industry at the moment ;) But yes, a government job would rock!

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by Spotty

Im amazed how we don't seem to have learned or lessons from the past. Nuclear power is such a short term solution. In terms of OUR home...OUR planet we should be coming up with the best long term solution. The nuclear waste wont be safe for hundreds of years and we need to think of the generations to come. I believe our plane can't sustain our wasteful lifestyle however business and industry won't accept a solution that may reduce our consumerism as it will drastically erode their profits. My rather radical solutions cenres around finding the most sensitive leverage points in our
buisness and lifestyle system. My radical solutions include:

Global govts increase the excise on fuel to take he price to $3 a litre. This to be phased in over the next 5 years.

Ramp up the users pays principle with water, electricity and gas

Careful Spotty you will be getting a visit from some guys in dark suits.

What are you a communist?

I agree by the way :Reverend:

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by Ringo

Hey where's Peter Garrett and why hasn't he been rolled out to say a few words on the environment on behalf of the Labor party ????

I heard he's tied up in the latest season of Dancing With The Stars

[39ClevoUte]

Go Ringo
While we are using our coal cause it's cheap (fair enough), other countries that have to import the stuff are going Nuke, we can sell uranium to them and balance our debts or we can be self rightess, go broke and let someone else selll the stuff. We are not the only ones that have it.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

The area required for all these turbines would be immense. As for environmental impact, you have noise pollution, visual pollution, and limited uses for the land the turbines would be placed upon.


PS I'm not part of the fossil fuel industry, I'm in the water industry at the moment ;) But yes, a government job would rock!

And consider the resources required to build 2400 of those things. The production of metals requires massive amounts of energy which, for the time being, would be sourced from fossil fuel intensive methods.

And yes, government jobs are nice

[39ClevoUte]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A big stomping turbine is real horny...

By the way so is a big V8

And the sound GREAT.

[Spotty]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Careful Spotty you will be getting a visit from some guys in dark suits.

What are you a communist?

I agree by the way :Reverend:

Nah....not a communist! lol! Many of my mates believe I lean to the left at times...but thats only on some minor issues. One thing that has concerned me a lot is just how many unhappy people there are out there. Depression and suicide are increasing....and all this in a society that is constantly having its values undermined by corporations. It just doesn't make sense..here we are destroying our planet to sustain a lifestyle that just isnt the answer for so many people. I don't have an answer all I know is that there needs to be big changes over a reasonable period of time. At the same time in challenging my own thoughts has there eve been a time in history when everyone was happy and he world was a perfect place? I don'believe so. We need to change because there is one undeniable fact we can't ignore. The evolution of the species has taught us that those who don't change or adapt to their environment will die. If we believe we can adapt and survive wih nuclear power then go for it. If not then the only other option in my opinion is to start dismantling over time our profit driven wasteful consumer lifestyle. Govt has a huge role to play and by drasticaly increasing energy prices these changes will start to happen.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

I guess it is a little selective, writing off solar & wind power in one just line. But all the uneducated people around my area (I am not saying that you are uneducated) that whinge about how filthy power stations must be shut down and that (for example) wind turbines are the answer, they really grind my gears!

Let's assume (generously) that the average wind turbine has a peak output of 2MW. That would mean eight hundred turbines would be needed to replace Hazelwood. <-- I might have my figures wrong here, I'm basing this on the assumption that Hazelwood is a 1600MW plant.

Also, Hazelwood supplies only about 1/4 of Victoria's energy, so if all our coal plants were replaced with wind turbines, we would need around 2400 of these little buggers. And this is assuming that the wind comes from one direction and blows HARD all year around. And the only entities that blow hard all year around are those annoying militant greenies! :

The area required for all these turbines would be immense. As for environmental impact, you have noise pollution, visual pollution, and limited uses for the land the turbines would be placed upon.

OK, so I haven't touched upon solar, which would be far more reliable than wind, especially in the red centre, but I'm not that knowledgable about solar energy, apart from its low conversion factor, so I'll leave that one to others with a better idea.

-Dave-

PS I'm not part of the fossil fuel industry, I'm in the water industry at the moment ;) But yes, a government job would rock!

Victorian government is going to extent the life of Hazelwood (the most polluting coal fired plant in the world), so the greenies lose big time.

Nothing is taking over from coal in the short term, the perception being it's just not cost effective to use anything else. In time we will be forced to find an alternative.

Our government needs to be investing a lot more now in securing our future.
Solar is something that could be used way more in our mix of power sources. If we, Australia, became the world leaders in this technology, we could sell something overseas that we have not dug up for once

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Nothing is taking over from coal in the short term, the perception being it's just not cost effective to use anything else. In time we will be forced to find an alternative.

It will be comforting to know that, when the lights go out and the world plunges into chaos - that it was done so in the most cost effective manner

That's the problem with a capitalist society tho isnt it... the market is unable to address problems like this which are mutually exclusive to the bottom line.

Oh well. I've gotta go check my stock prices....

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by Spotty

Nah....not a communist! lol! Many of my mates believe I lean to the left at times...but thats only on some minor issues. One thing that has concerned me a lot is just how many unhappy people there are out there. Depression and suicide are increasing....and all this in a society that is constantly having its values undermined by corporations. It just doesn't make sense..here we are destroying our planet to sustain a lifestyle that just isnt the answer for so many people. I don't have an answer all I know is that there needs to be big changes over a reasonable period of time. At the same time in challenging my own thoughts has there eve been a time in history when everyone was happy and he world was a perfect place? I don'believe so. We need to change because there is one undeniable fact we can't ignore. The evolution of the species has taught us that those who don't change or adapt to their environment will die. If we believe we can adapt and survive wih nuclear power then go for it. If not then the only other option in my opinion is to start dismantling over time our profit driven wasteful consumer lifestyle. Govt has a huge role to play and by drasticaly increasing energy prices these changes will start to happen.

You are a communist, I knew it!!! I'm not talking to you any more "pinko".

So what if record numbers of people are depressed or suiciding, look at how well the stock market is doing!!!!

But seriously, it is a tuff one getting the balance right. I am yet to live under a better system than we have in Australia. Not suggesting there isn't plenty we could do to make it better.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

It will be comforting to know that, when the lights go out and the world plunges into chaos - that it was done so in the most cost effective manner

That's the problem with a capitalist society tho isnt it... the market is unable to address problems like this which are mutually exclusive to the bottom line.

Oh well. I've gotta go check my stock prices....

LOL Is it about who has the biggest boat in the marina or who has the most real friends when it all eventually goes pear shaped?

Although having the biggest boat might get you lots of "real friends".

[XRchic]

I think the natural competitive nature of animals and humans particularly, may well lead to our demise.

I dont think we can remove the competetive element from our societies as its part of how societies develop... its just that the competition moves into difficult territory when it becomes overly materialistic and resource intensive. Competition is good because it gives us a lot, but then it causes problems... take the good with the bad I guess.

I dont think we can change ourselves much, but perhaps we will be driven to develop the technology to enable us to cope with how we are and what we use. Lets hope huh?

[Spotty]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

You are a communist, I knew it!!! I'm not talking to you any more "pinko".

So what if record numbers of people are depressed or suiciding, look at how well the stock market is doing!!!!

But seriously, it is a tuff one getting the balance right. I am yet to live under a better system than we have in Australia. Not suggesting there isn't plenty we could do to make it better.

Pinko!!!! ha ha ha your probably a catholic so there! I have another commo thought.... Have you ever read about systems thinking theory? Its core theme is that systems such as the world we live in is fighting a continual battle with itself to get its systems in 'balance'. The best analogy I can use is this. Imagine 10 people were each having a shower in caravan park dunny block. Each person is constantly adjusting the water temperature in order to get the perfect temperature shower for them. None of the showerers..have any idea how much the other person is adjusting the hot and cold water and so the 'shower is a system that is constantly being adjusted to be in balance. The same theory can be aplied to the world we live in which is a series of millions of systems surrounded by a big system which is our environment or our planet. Our business systems which depend on a range of non renewable energies will collapse or evolve into something else unless we find another form of energy such as nuclear power. On the other hand if we do nothing and let the energy run out and the planet detiorate then the system will find a new balance. Increasing the taxes on non renewable energy should be thought of as an artificial intervention which over time will allow our system to perhaps achieve a sustainable balance that will preserve our environment.

[Walkinshaw]

I reccon we could round up a bunch of people off this forum, lock them in a room with a turbine above them and start conversations along the lines of

LPG is great
PC needs to stop
Nuclear enegry is awsome

I gaurentee we can create enough hot air to turn the turbine to the tune of 1MW/forumuser. Only issue is the byproduct. Im sure a few 100million dung betles can take care of that for us.


People who suffer from the "not in my back yard" syndrome. If they build a nuke reactor near you. MOVE, simple as that, don't whinge, whine or moan, just pack your crap and move. The sooner people learn that the individual does NOT matter the better of this place will be.

[Walkinshaw]

Oh also the best way to fix all these problems is for someting to occour as mentioned above.

Plague, disaster, sinking of a contenent, roll call developed to 'dispose' of every 4th person, should help matters out no end.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

I reccon we could round up a bunch of people off this forum, lock them in a room with a turbine above them and start conversations along the lines of

LPG is great
PC needs to stop
Nuclear enegry is awsome

I gaurentee we can create enough hot air to turn the turbine to the tune of 1MW/forumuser. Only issue is the byproduct. Im sure a few 100million dung betles can take care of that for us

Nice and renewable as well??

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by Spotty

Pinko!!!! ha ha ha your probably a catholic so there! I have another commo thought.... Have you ever read about systems thinking theory? Its core theme is that systems such as the world we live in is fighting a continual battle with itself to get its systems in 'balance'. The best analogy I can use is this. Imagine 10 people were each having a shower in caravan park dunny block. Each person is constantly adjusting the water temperature in order to get the perfect temperature shower for them. None of the showerers..have any idea how much the other person is adjusting the hot and cold water and so the 'shower is a system that is constantly being adjusted to be in balance. The same theory can be aplied to the world we live in which is a series of millions of systems surrounded by a big system which is our environment or our planet. Our business systems which depend on a range of non renewable energies will collapse or evolve into something else unless we find another form of energy such as nuclear power. On the other hand if we do nothing and let the energy run out and the planet detiorate then the system will find a new balance. Increasing the taxes on non renewable energy should be thought of as an artificial intervention which over time will allow our system to perhaps achieve a sustainable balance that will preserve our environment.

Sorry to keep winding you up Spotty. I actually agree with the the jist of all you have posted. It may be a bit feely touchy for some.

Your idea of a tax on non-renewables addresses some economic issues. And would change the landscape as far as which power source is the most attractive. Unfortunately that's one of the reasons some people would be dead against it.

The Kyoto Protocol seemed common sence to me. But our government says no because it would cost jobs.

"Work all day in the blue sky mine there will be food on the table tonight!"
Peter Garrett Member for Kingsford Smith

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Work all day in the blue sky mine there will be food on the table tonight!

Lol, too true. Do you live in Kingsford Smith electorate??

The kyoto protocol is about as close as getting to what we need as we'll ever see. Yes it will cost jobs but I think the other major contributor to our decision not to sign up for full compliance is the fact that developing nations are exempt from its requirements.

If we're tightening our energy and pollution belts and countries like china and india are allowed to grow their emissions - hand over foot - then the result of the protocol is significantly weakened.

An energy protocol wont work if you have parties opting out.

[pennybrain]

Homer Simpson has worked in a plant for years and he seems fine to me!

All options of creating power creates waste.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Lol, too true. Do you live in Kingsford Smith electorate??

The kyoto protocol is about as close as getting to what we need as we'll ever see. Yes it will cost jobs but I think the other major contributor to our decision not to sign up for full compliance is the fact that developing nations are exempt from its requirements.

If we're tightening our energy and pollution belts and countries like china and india are allowed to grow their emissions - hand over foot - then the result of the protocol is significantly weakened.

An energy protocol wont work if you have parties opting out.

Yes, it seems the US government used the exact same argument not to ratify Kyoto. I don't agree doing nothing is better.

China is using renewables as part of it's energy supply. They are big in wind!

I don't live in Kingsford Smith, I attended several of Mr Garretts early public appearances :sm_headba