Nuclear power - do we need it?

[DA68ZA]

-yes-

[DA68ZA]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

and i find it amusing that you think australia puts an importance on safety and security that costs money . i wonder which contracting firm will get to maintain these plants . and what contracts these employees will be working under.??? : our water supply is really really well maintaned isnt it . so is our transport system . .look at the railways , the m5 tunnel,30 year old cranes on the ports , that were only designed , and are written off tax wise over there life of 10 years,planes to be maintaned in the philipeans,australian cruise ship pacific sky (1959) model, military helicoptors , shall i go on. how long will these plants run . sorry . i've lost faith in australia . to interested in profit making and cutting costs and lying about it , all for the sake of covering up political negligence and blaming other parties. and by the way , we are way , way, way, behing the 8 ball when it comes to technology. not for me thanks .
oh and i should say i'm not totally anti nuclear . i'm anti f ...wit and most people couldnt pee in a toilet without wetting the floor and thats a fact . so stick with green alternatives . that way when we f... up it might cause a small flood . not a world , life ending catastrophee.

gee if thats the case you better not drive your ford / holden down the road the wheels might fall off and god knows what else .

[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.

[Laminge]

Last time someone called me ming they ended up as atoms... sorry.

I recall reading that the cost associated with the development, maintenance, production and disposal vs the benefits of power output would lead to a negative investment.

I am happy to be corrected.

[4.9 EF Futura]

I voted yes although i dont know if i'd say we "need" it....

It'd be a good idea tho. But it's still a short term soultion to a looooooooooong term problem. Some stuff i posted on another forum yesterday:

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/ed...2005/0703.html

Based on 3% growth in uranium consumption p.a.... looking at serious uranium problems prior to the year 2030. Check out figure 2 on that link.

Figure 3 shows what happens if we find a shipload more of the stuff. Still not looking great beyond 2040. And i'd put more credence on the higher growth rates of consumption - because I think as the black stuff runs out, we'll become a lot more dependent on nuclear energy.

This is compared with 250 odd years of coal - at our current rate... but we all know that energy demand has a tendency to grow exponentially.

Regarding waste - you'd be suprised how much we need to deal with this problem already as a significant player in the mining of uranium. The refinement of the ore (enrichment) produces 4 grams of waste (er... uranium 238??) in the refinement of 1 gram of uranium 235.... which i believe is currently "stored". Granted, spent control rods are a lot nastier than the waste associated with mining... and i dont think we do any enrichment here do we?? But... if i grab a burger at macdonalds, it's nice if they also provide a bin for me to put my rubbish into....

gtfpv, I agree that greener energy is the answer - but nothing we have at the moment is of any use to anyone. Capable of producing, maybe 5% of our current energy needs.

And do you know how much oil and coal fired electricity is needed to make a wind generator? lol

[LTDHO]

Yes.

Solar and wind can on supply the demand.

[brodfloyd]

What i think is funny is that groups of people in australia (not only the greens, but sometimes just whoever feels like pushing their wheelbarrow when it suits, farmers, local residents etc) really arent keen on most of, if not all, of the viable ways of producing electricity in this country.

The following is a brief discussion of the pros and cons that i see of all of the ways we can use to make electricity in this country. In brackets are the recent stories/controversy related to that means of power

NO to coal, because its one of the reasons why we arent Ratifying the Kyoto Treaty and destroying the environment. Australia has the best coal deposits in the world, its cheap as chips and fairly easy and safe to make electricity from, however its very very polutive. What some ppl dont reallise is that there are some very nasty chemicals when coal is burnt that get let into the atmosphere, not just greenhouse. These are the grades of nasties that methods like nuclear have to bottle as medium and high level wastes but coal plants emmit them into the atmosphere
(eg of on recent controversy is the plant in the latrobe valley in victoria that the gov just extended for another bunch of years)

NO to Hydro, because we have to build dams, and although once the dams are built its a fairly safe way of making power. if the dams dont collapse and it dosent make that much power for how much it costs (eg tasmania)

NO to Wind, They are pretty easy build, and we have lots of wind in certain parts of the country. But some dont want them cos they consider them ugly although they usually pull some excuse like because endangered birds get minced in the blades. However they cost a fair bit of dough, only work when there is a breeze and have a fairly low yeild (eg shipwreck coast of victoria)

NO to nuclear, It is high yield, and done right it can be very safe with new technology. people dont want it because of the connotations of the word 'nuclear' and other facts like that we have to mine uranium, ensure that we dont have a meltdown and do something with the waste. and its cost.

NO, to burning oil or gas, easy, but not that cheap anymore and because of the emmisions its much the same as coal

Now most are pro solar, as its clean, has no moving parts so it cant hurt wildlife, doesnt require huge buildings and is fairly unobtrusive, however solar isnt really cost effective because the solar panels dont make enough power and they degenerate fairly quickly in relative terms, and the cost of making a bank of them big enough to generate significant amounts of power is huge. this combined with the cost (of which a hidden one is the cost of materials environmentaly in making the panels) also concern to ppl.

Now i know this is simplified and fairly basic, but there is no 100percent clean way of making power. Its a case of the lesser of all evils. I personally think that even tho it costs alot, that nuclear is alot cleaner and more efficient way of making power. and the new methods of re processing wastes make it cleaner. i think they said on tv that one plant would produce less than 1 ton a year of high level wastes.

And i dont know if any one listens to dr karl, but there is a very good way of getting rid of nuclear waste safely. Dig a hole a few km in to the earth belllow water and all taht, put in the waste, cover it with metres of concrete and its very very safe.

[mcflux]

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-

[merlin]

Yes I am for nuclear power, bring it on...

I wonder if we will ever have nuclear powered cars?

[4.9 EF Futura]

Lol. Studied a bit of geology dave???

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Lol. Studied a bit of geology dave???

Avoiding studying for exams mate ;) ;)

But I did a bit of geological studies last year & the year before, which might have helped form my opinion! Plus drifting a hilux in a coal mine made me appreciate all the glory of coal (thankyou, International Power Hazelwood Mine Pty Ltd for the paid experience!)

I think coal can withstand roughly 600kpa pressure from a structure (or vehicle, in my case!), but I wouldn't want to build a house out of the stuff, especially the fireplace.

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by merlin

Yes I am for nuclear power, bring it on...

I wonder if we will ever have nuclear powered cars?

Yes, I have Big Plans <tm> for my Windsor! I'm not sure if my block will handle it though...

[Hardtopxb]

The east coast of OZ is sitting on a coal seam, 300/400 years power supply. The filtratation technology for pulling pollutants out of coal burning power stations is starting to have a major effect on the amount of shlt that actually gets into the atmosphere.We should stay with coal power as long as possible.BUT Nuclear power is INEVITABLE.Unfortunatly, because no viable alternative is available as yet..The storing of radioactive waste is and will be(just think of the problem as more and more nuclear stations come on line) a massive worry... And last'ly. Im a terrorist and I want to do the most damage to a nations population/infrastructure/future viability as a workable society.What would I target?. A countries non nuclear power supply, or the many strategicaly placed nuclear power stations.(Look at the ever growing amount of nuclear stations(potential radioactive weapons) that many countries are building) I know this is a doomsday outlook but I think its also a look into a possible future of this planet given the current/continuing situation..Sorry for the rant...

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by merlin

Yes I am for nuclear power, bring it on...

I wonder if we will ever have nuclear powered cars?

i was told a story once that a female , nuclear proffessor developed a nuclear powered car ( electric) . it would go for something like 12 years with a small nuclear cell. problem was . it wasnt viable because the cost would've been next to nothing to run. and the potential hazards of terrorism from people exposing the radioactive battery / and accidents. was tooooo dangerous . that was about 30 years ago, though.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by DA68ZA

gee if thats the case you better not drive your ford / holden down the road the wheels might fall off and god knows what else .

ring ford and holdens warranty department and see , dont ask me . ring them yourself . i believe they are fully employed all the time. :nutsycuck

[mcflux]

I'd rather bomb the power grid or dump nasties in the major reservoirs, it would have a bigger impact on society. Plus busting open a nuclear power plant would be an absolute mongrel of a job, it would be easier to cause havoc 9/11 style. :Reverend:

storing of radioactive waste is and will be(just think of the problem as more and more nuclear stations come on line) a massive worry

Not on our continent. As I mentioned our bedrock and soils are well suited to radioactive material, as Australia's geography is stable and ancient.

A possibility for reducing CO2 emissions from coal-fired plants, the Latrobe Valley ones in particular, is geosequestration (sp?), where the flue gases are captured, liquified, and stored in geologically stable portions. This suits the Latrobe Valley well as we have the Bass Straight oil fields >150km away. Oil/gas wells are ideal as natural storage facilities, as they have held oil and gas for thousands/millions of years without leaching or escape. If they can hold hydrocarbons (especially in gas form), why can't they hold liquified greenhouse gases? The costly elements of geosequestration would be the pipe infrastructure (150kms of pipes built to withstand liquified gases), and the liquification facility.

-Dave-

[XRchic]

How much of a real alternative is there NOW? I mean, is the rest going to be enough, such as solar, wind etc? Can they all produce enough energy for us now and into the future?

Obviously over time, we will find better ways of doing things, but with what we currently understand about energy production, it seems that the preferable, green ways are not going to be enough.

[red_hotxr6]

Yes buttttt... i do not want it in my back yard. The chance of another chernobol happening is very slim, but it is a cleaner more efficient way to produce power.

[turboute]

Originally Posted by PHATXR8

Nuclear power is outrageously expensive, the reactors need MASSIVE amounts of water to produce steam which turn the turbines, and therefore have to be built on or very close to major waterways near the large population centres (where there are already water shortages, there is no solution to the waste disposal issue, the waste is highly dangerous for millions (yes, millions) of years, still emit greenhouse gasses, and it will take at least 20 years to get any up and running in Australia

On the other hand, wind power is free, cheaper to build, and non pollutive. Most major European countries (eg Germany, Denmark, Spain, etc) are now in the process of decommisioning their nuclear power plants and replacing them with wind and solar generation devices. Oh, did I mention that the USA has installed more wind power generation than any other country in the world in the past 2 years.... follow that one Johnny Howard.

Umm Coal power stations also tend to make alot of steam to drive the turbine blades. Both Plants have the same method of producing electricity - Super heat water and use the pressure release to turn turbine blades. The main difference being that neuclear can heat up alot more water alot more quickly due to it being a higher yeild process.

Compared to yeild wind power is probably alot more expensive than both coal and fission plants to build and maintain. I also hear that one of the scandinavian countries is now building one of the largest plants ever built - maybe to supply power for neighboring countries too - It was on 60 minutes that night when they went into chernobyl. I doubt that they could replace the neuclear power plants with wind and solar - what would happen on a still night? the whole country would shut down? even if they had a couple of coal / gas plants as backup they would end up being under tremendous load to handle the current draw.

While Australia should be investing in Solar power and getting out percentage up closer to about 20% wich will probably be about as high a percentage as you could go, we will still either have to rely on hydro, or steam turbine power for the majority of our power. Whether this be coal, gas or fission power is the main question being discussed here not wether we should be using more renewable energy. Coal and gas will pollute staight to the atmosphere and neuclear will leach into the ground, both have their bad points.

[Raptor]

No nukes!

All the earth needs is a whole lot less people using a whole lot less energy and everything would be fine

Bring on the mother of all plagues :evil3:
(just not to me or those I care about of course)

[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.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by XRchic

How much of a real alternative is there NOW? I mean, is the rest going to be enough, such as solar, wind etc? Can they all produce enough energy for us now and into the future?

Obviously over time, we will find better ways of doing things, but with what we currently understand about energy production, it seems that the preferable, green ways are not going to be enough.

If we could get... several technological breakthroughs, political support, international collaboration, massive capital investments, no sabotaging efforts from oil/gas comapnies, 50 years of peace to retrofit infrastructure to utilise alternative energies....

Then estimates are that we could get the equivalent energy of 5 billion barrels of oil per annum, globally.

We currently require the energy equivalent of about 30 billion barrels p.a.

And the global economy doubles roughly every 20 years and will therefore have double the resource requirements...

[gozza]

renewable sources in the scheme of things don't amount to jack all

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by red_hotxr6

Yes buttttt... i do not want it in my back yard. The chance of another chernobol happening is very slim, but it is a cleaner more efficient way to produce power.

Define "cleaner", and define "efficient".

Nuclear power will have somewhat less output of CO2 and fly ash (ie, none!), but still spews out water vapour, as Sourbastard mentioned. Water vapour has a far greater greenhouse effect than CO2, by trapping reflected heat and infrared radiation from the earth's surface (yes, the earth emits radioactivity).

Also, conversion from matter to energy has a marginally higher rate in a nuclear plant, but efficiency should be the overall cost, including the cost of the process itself, plus the infrastructure, energy material, spent waste, etc etc. A lot of energy from a nuclear plant is still lost as thermal energy (heat, from the cooling towers with water vapour). Same goes for a coal plant. But for now our coal is literally dirt cheap, in plentiful supply, in close proximity to the power stations, and there's possibility that the fly ash captured and contained as a slurry in ash ponds can be used for concrete production, as well as for extracting metals such as magnesium which exists within the ash.

Perhaps sitting wind turbines on top of the cooling towers would extract a few more MW from the process?

[4.9 EF Futura]

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.

I guess only problem would be the infrastructure to support the plant and the massive reduction in efficiency when transmitting power over large distances.

I think current power lines see about 30% of what leaves a power station actually make it to the people connected to the grid...

[39ClevoUte]

Here's a great summary for those interested...
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
http://www.actionpa.org/energy/

[mcflux]

Regarding the Finnish graph:

Whilst the capital costs and O&M costs are probably universal, the price of the fuel type (uranium vs coal) would be totally different to here in Australia, particularly in Victoria.

[OzJavelin]

To answer the poll .. YES

[RANT_ON]
To my uneducated eyes, large scale DISTRIBUTED electricity production is still via large scale, controllable and reliable mechanical means ... turbines being driven by steam currently seems like "cutting edge". The way our Western societies are currently specialised and suburbanised, this is about the only system that works.
Now .. if we want to talk LOCALISED, all the "greeny" technologies are more suited. I could probably run my house off solar/wind/etc. But it's like water. Govt's only now doing a half-assed job of prompting some degree of self-sufficiency. Only now are local councils allowing people to install rain-water tanks .. now that we are in a drought. If we all captured our own water, generated some amount of our own power thru solar cells, etc - became more self reliant - we'd be in better shape now and probably wouldn't be having this arguement. But govts (fed, state, local) wrap the whole thing up in red tape so that currently it probably a useless exercise to install these technologies in your home ..
.. I'm sure that will all change in the future when nothing has been done about DISTRIBUTED powere generation (ie. no new power plants) and supply continually exceeds demand .. then govt will be legislating for all buildings to be somewhat self-sufficient for power generation, water, etc ..
[/RANT_OFF]

[ltd]

Yes, we need it now. Problem with wind and solar is it is far too expensive, inefficient and produces low yield for the massive investment required. Furthermore, areas of prevailant wind conditions are typically the coast and nobody wants to see giant windmills there. Whilst central Oz would be great for the solar panels the problem there is the amount of power lost through transmission over a vast difference ie where it is generated and where it is needed.

Nuclear waste disposal techniques have dramatically improved over the years and Oz industries have proven suitable disposal methods that do not leak or breakdown. Additionally, any water that is coming out contaminated from the reactor is a rarity and signals a leak. The water used to make steam does not come into contact with any radioactive material whatsoever, and shouldn't ever under normal operating conditions.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

If we could get... several technological breakthroughs, political support, international collaboration, massive capital investments, no sabotaging efforts from oil/gas comapnies, 50 years of peace to retrofit infrastructure to utilise alternative energies....

Then estimates are that we could get the equivalent energy of 5 billion barrels of oil per annum, globally.

We currently require the energy equivalent of about 30 billion barrels p.a.

And the global economy doubles roughly every 20 years and will therefore have double the resource requirements...

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?