Nuclear power - do we need it?

[Falcon Freak]

No fence sitters please - yes or no.

FF

[Gammaboy]

Yes

[Electric]

No :yeees:

[Deadman]

I don't think so... Renewable enery should be the go (solar, hydro, wind etc)

[Casper]

Yes. I'll take 3 and stop dumping tons of crap in to the air to breathe

[Falcon Coupe]

Only if it is terrorist proof eg: armed guards and no fly zone, and we all get free power, i don't see how the government says something that is like perpetual motion costs more than coal ?

Why can't the waste be barreled and shot into space ?

[EF, What else?]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Only if it is terrorist proof eg: armed guards and no fly zone, and we all get free power, i don't see how the government says something that is like perpetual motion costs more than coal ?

Why can't the waste be barreled and shot into space ?

I think the issue would be what would happen of the means of delivery were to fail? I mean, if the waste was barreled inside a rocket of some sort, to be sent out to space, what kind of disasters would we be facing if there was a major malfunction, such as the Apollo One take off (I think it was Apollo One), or the space shuttle mishaps. And the shuttle crashes have been in the last 15 years or so. Not exactly yesterdays news.

[GasoLane]

Yes...
Having owned a couple of old V12 Jags with Lucas Electrics the scary thing is the one in Syd built in Lucas heights!!

[Outbackjack]

There is no doubt about it, John Howard is a master politician (read sleeze bag). He has almost buried the debate/revaltions about his draconian IR laws with this fantasy about Australia becoming a nuclear state..... He must laugh himself to sleep every night in his nice warm tax payer provided bed.

[xfalconz]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

There is no doubt about it, John Howard is a master politician (read sleeze bag). He has almost buried the debate/revaltions about his draconian IR laws with this fantasy about Australia becoming a nuclear state..... He must laugh himself to sleep every night in his nice warm tax payer provided bed.

He will probabaly laugh even more when he builds nuclear power stations to serve the main cities and buries the waste somewhere out your way! Bastard!

[boss-290]

We have enough coal recources to keep us going for 300 years.

[Psycho Chicken]

I know it's an old post, but whatever.

Originally Posted by EF, What else?

I think the issue would be what would happen of the means of delivery were to fail? I mean, if the waste was barreled inside a rocket of some sort, to be sent out to space, what kind of disasters would we be facing if there was a major malfunction, such as the Apollo One take off (I think it was Apollo One), or the space shuttle mishaps. And the shuttle crashes have been in the last 15 years or so. Not exactly yesterdays news.

Apollo 1 wasn't a launch, it was a test on the pad. Half the cause was the pressurised pure oxygen in the command module, as well as a crap load of wiring that shorted out. Both being no issue in an unmanned rocket that was pointed at the sun.

Two shuttle crashes, both of which were preventable. Mind you only one of those was in the 15 years you gave. You'd be hard pressed to find a shuttle crash before the 80's though.

Not to mention countless probes have been launched with nuclear batteries onboard and no problems there.

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by Psycho Chicken

I know it's an old post, but whatever.



Apollo 1 wasn't a launch, it was a test on the pad. Half the cause was the pressurised pure oxygen in the command module, as well as a crap load of wiring that shorted out. Both being no issue in an unmanned rocket that was pointed at the sun.

Two shuttle crashes, both of which were preventable. Mind you only one of those was in the 15 years you gave. You'd be hard pressed to find a shuttle crash before the 80's though.

Not to mention countless probes have been launched with nuclear batteries onboard and no problems there.

The idea of shooting this stuff at the sun has merit. But I believe that the USA has run out of, or almost, run out of saturn V rockets.

This way the stuff can be disposed of in a user pays system. No tax payer dollars should be used to get rid of it. And each country should take responsibility for its own launch's. That is, we should launch from woomera and cape york, if that ever get of the ground (no pun intended). And the lauch paths should only be over the areas that benefit from the power stations that the waste came from, or over no population at all. All very expensive, given the cost of building, maintaining, and decomissioning, I doubt that very many Australians would be very happy at the sudden rise in the cost of electricity.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

That is, we should launch from woomera and cape york,

Cant use Woomera after the end of the V8 Supercar season. 888 Racing are using it for testing

[Sapper]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

The idea of shooting this stuff at the sun has merit. But I believe that the USA has run out of, or almost, run out of saturn V rockets.

This way the stuff can be disposed of in a user pays system. No tax payer dollars should be used to get rid of it. And each country should take responsibility for its own launch's. That is, we should launch from woomera and cape york, if that ever get of the ground (no pun intended). And the lauch paths should only be over the areas that benefit from the power stations that the waste came from, or over no population at all. All very expensive, given the cost of building, maintaining, and decomissioning, I doubt that very many Australians would be very happy at the sudden rise in the cost of electricity.

Bear in mind that there is a huge cost of manpower, finances and materials to do something like this. Half the reason that nuclear power is so beneficial is that compared to all other sources of energy, it uses by far the smallest amount of resources.

There is a scandanavian country (can't remember which) that has developed an excellent way to dispose of nuclear waste underground. Even the normally environmentally anal EU is happy with it.

Things like solar and wind power, tough renewable, produce little actual electrical power for the resources required to set them up. And, where as ALL other sources of electricity just convert energy from one form to another, nuclear power generates energy through converting mass into energy which has a much better yield (the speed of light squared is a VERY big number).

[VKXY]

Originally Posted by Psycho Chicken

I know it's an old post, but whatever.



Apollo 1 wasn't a launch, it was a test on the pad. Half the cause was the pressurised pure oxygen in the command module, as well as a crap load of wiring that shorted out. Both being no issue in an unmanned rocket that was pointed at the sun.

Two shuttle crashes, both of which were preventable. Mind you only one of those was in the 15 years you gave. You'd be hard pressed to find a shuttle crash before the 80's though.

Not to mention countless probes have been launched with nuclear batteries onboard and no problems there.

During the 1970's a Russian (then Soviet) spy satellite re-entered Earth's atmosphere over Canada, It broke up and quite a few bits landed on the ground. Unfortunately, this satellite was powered by a nuclear reactor. Bits of the reactor and its fuel cell also broke into several pieces and scattered far and wide. The Canadians spents months flying around tracking down radiation hot spots, picking up the pieces, decontaminating the surrounding area, by removing plants and soil and hiding it somewhere. They then sued the Soviet government for the costs involved in cleaning up the mess. The Soviets agreed to pay as long as the satellites debris was returned to them, which it was. Just lucky it was over a relatively unpopulated area.
Nuclear spacecraft batteries are a wonderful thing for sure, they are well tested, High speed train crash straight into the battery container, they also dropped shipping containers on them from a great height. These virtually indestructable containers were for a few KGs of Plutonium. Let's send our waste into the Sun where it won't hurt us, Yes it could be done, BUT, you would want to send as much as possible. Average launch into Low Earth Orbit is a few tonnes, at several thousand dollars per KG, there hundreds of thousands of tonnes of this rubbish now lying around in 'STORAGE'. How many launches do we need? I wouldn't want this stuff in Low Earth Orbit, I want to send it into the Sun, multiply launch costs several times because to get a spacecraft to travel in towards to the Sun it has to be slowed down in order to fall into it. When launched it will be travelling with the Earth at a great rate of knots around the Sun. Unless you slow it down compared to the Earth, it is only going to follow you around. A massive amount of fuel is used to point the rocket in the other direction from Earths travels around the Sun and then brake its speed, which causes it to fall inwards. So now you have to have less cargo to make room for more fuel.
Every year, out of several dozens of launches by various nations, several of these launch vehicles blow themselves and their cargo to smitherenes.
I could go on about this, but I think it already must be seen as glaringly impracticle.

:-)

VKXY

[GK]

Originally Posted by VKXY

I wouldn't want this stuff in Low Earth Orbit, I want to send it into the Sun. VKXY

Imagine the cost of a one way trip to the sun!

GK

[GK]

Haven't read every post, don't have time to read 200+, however, my observation is that no matter what energy we produce, there will be consequences of one sort or another.

Here's the Trillion dollar question.
Which energy source will give us the most power, for the cheapest cost, for the least damage to the environment.

And the answer to that trillion dollar question depends of course on which scientists you believe, depending also on which mult-national is sponsoring their research! LOL!

Also depends on how much kick-backing is going on in government.

GK

[S3SR]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Why can't the waste be barreled and shot into space ?

because it was to blow up in the atmosphere we're all fug'd

i voted yes....as long as no fly zone and any plane which does is shot down before it hits...id rather them all die then destroy half of australia
oh and half price electricity for everyone..

[Walkinshaw]

Originally Posted by FALCONSR

oh and half price electricity for everyone..

erm, look at the intial capital outlay for a u235/u238 reactor.....

[mik]

nup dont need it, solar power, wave power, hydro power, wind power plenty of other types of power generation

[Jeeepers]

Originally Posted by mik

nup dont need it, solar power, wave power, hydro power, wind power plenty of other types of power generation

Solar is too expensive and inefficient at this stage, Wave?? Surfers would gripe at that one, not to mention conservationists. Hydro is working now, but how many dams do you want fowling our waterways? Wind is ok, but an ugly approach, as well as consuming vast areas of land to be effective.
I'm a yes, assuming we wouldn't go cheap on design like Russia and others.

[mik]

Originally Posted by redfin

Solar is too expensive and inefficient at this stage, Wave?? Surfers would gripe at that one, not to mention conservationists. Hydro is working now, but how many dams do you want fowling our waterways? Wind is ok, but an ugly approach, as well as consuming vast areas of land to be effective.
I'm a yes, assuming we wouldn't go cheap on design like Russia and others.

we have 14000 odd kilometers of coastline or is it miles?? correct me someone, so neither wave power or wind power would be that much of an impost if put in the right places, they would be barely noticeable, i don`t know for sure but i`m betting if we went wind cost would be initially higher but in the long run, it would turn out cheaper ,no waste for a start, no huge security costs, no risc of terrorist problems, and 0 potential health problems(except for that rare parrot), there has not been a mention of using the tidal forces for generation of power either, the cheap solution is not always best.....my 2 bobs worth

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by mik

we have 14000 odd kilometers of coastline or is it miles?? correct me someone, so neither wave power or wind power would be that much of an impost if put in the right places, they would be barely noticeable, i don`t know for sure but i`m betting if we went wind cost would be initially higher but in the long run, it would turn out cheaper ,no waste for a start, no huge security costs, no risc of terrorist problems, and 0 potential health problems(except for that rare parrot), there has not been a mention of using the tidal forces for generation of power either, the cheap solution is not always best.....my 2 bobs worth

How much of that coastline has regular, decent-sized waves?

How much of that coastline has regular, decent-strength winds?

No huge security or terrorist problems? So patrolling 14,000kms of coastline power supply is easier than guarding a single plant (coal/nuclear/etc)?

Cheaper? No waste? What do you mean by "no waste", and why would this be cheaper? I consider a dead wind turbine from a lightning strike as considerable waste, which would be costly to fix.

Tidal forces are similar to wave power, there are few sites which would be economically and environmentally viable for housing tidal power stations. Marine ecosystems are much more fragile than terrestrial ecosystems generally.

I agree with your statement that the cheap solution is not always the best, but in the case where you have an unreliable and potentially environmentally-damaging expensive option (let's choose tidal in this instance), versus a cheap option (which is generally reliable if fossil-fuel based, and let's say environmentally damaging), I'd be picking the cheap option, depending on the potential environmental damage each option could cause. If both caused on a ranking scale an equal amount of environmental damage (atmospheric pollution & ash ponds versus marine habitat destruction), you would be crazy to pick the expensive option!

That's my $0.02million

[charles_wif_xf]

Originally Posted by redfin

Solar is too expensive and inefficient at this stage, Wave?? Surfers would gripe at that one, not to mention conservationists. Hydro is working now, but how many dams do you want fowling our waterways? Wind is ok, but an ugly approach, as well as consuming vast areas of land to be effective.
I'm a yes, assuming we wouldn't go cheap on design like Russia and others.

If we are adamant about saving the environment, then financial cost should be the last of our concerns. If the solar, wind, etc technologies will work if widespread enough, the money should be created (creating inflation in the process but who cares if the world is saved) to fund these utilities.

[xr8ute]

Yes. Bring it...

[Sourbastard]

Firstly FF, it might interest you to know that the most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapour. Nuclear power stations primary emission is, water vapour.

Secondly, I mock the entire concept of the "greenhouse effect"

Thirdly, I mock you.

[montyv8]

*edited*

sorry dave i'll get back in my corner now :(

[Laminge]

I think you miss the point completely with regards to nuclear power

Its not the fact that we need it, its the cost associated to produce it.

[jabba]

Originally Posted by Laminge

I think you miss the point completely with regards to nuclear power

Its not the fact that we need it, its the cost associated to produce it.

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Firstly FF, it might interest you to know that the most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapour. Nuclear power stations primary emission is, water vapour.

Secondly, I mock the entire concept of the "greenhouse effect"

Thirdly, I mock you.

Not being a smart ***, But can the both of you explain what your are talking about to the uneducated. Yes that is me and I bet a quiet a few others.
Sour b@st@rd:
How does water vapour contribute to Greenhouse gasses?
Why is water vapour as a greenhouse gas so bad?
What is your reason for mocking the concept of "Green house effect"?

Ming:
how is the cost of nuclear power any different to that of a Burning coal? I would not imagine that getting rid of nuclear wast would be a cheap.