Home› A Moving Train

Australia's Nuclear Power 'Debate'

ScubascottScubascott Posts: 815
edited February 2007 in A Moving Train
Not there has actually been much debate. As it currenty stands the liberals are pushing the idea and labor has refused to even consider it as an option. There has been no middle ground.

I personally see it as a possibly good option for reduction of carbon emissions, but without having a great deal of knowledge on the subject I'd prefer to reserve judgement for now. It seems however, that very little effort is being put into research into renewable energy technologies by either side of politics. For example it apparently it has been calculated that hydroelectric power plants designed to utilise the energy of the extreme tidal flows in north-western Australia could provide enough electricity for the entire country. Possibilities like this are istantly dismissed by politicians as impractical, and little effort ever seems to be made to investigate them further.

Thoughts?
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!

-C Addison
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • sourdoughsourdough Posts: 579
    Scubascott wrote:
    Not there has actually been much debate. As it currenty stands the liberals are pushing the idea and labor has refused to even consider it as an option. There has been no middle ground.

    I personally see it as a possibly good option for reduction of carbon emissions, but without having a great deal of knowledge on the subject I'd prefer to reserve judgement for now. It seems however, that very little effort is being put into research into renewable energy technologies by either side of politics. For example it apparently it has been calculated that hydroelectric power plants designed to utilise the energy of the extreme tidal flows in north-western Australia could provide enough electricity for the entire country. Possibilities like this are istantly dismissed by politicians as impractical, and little effort ever seems to be made to investigate them further.

    Thoughts?
    I'm very torn about nuclear power. Partially cause I admit I'm a bit ignorant on the subject. However, I do think it can be used as a band-aid solution until we can develop better technology to generate power that does not emit greenhouse gasses or waste. From what I understand, the technology is much better than it was before so it is much safer and produces much less waste that can be broken down in 80 years or so and be safely eliminated. Currently there are other options that I would like to see in place such as wind and other renewable power sources. However in the climate dilemma that we find ourselves in right now, if nuclear power can be responsibly used, then I'd be open to using it until we can improve other technologies.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    You always hear that it's "cleaner" because of the CO2 emissions. But what about the depleted uranium? See, when they refine uranium 95% of it is garbage. The United States makes weapons out of the DU and contaminates the middle-east. So arguably it's not better.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • sourdoughsourdough Posts: 579
    Ahnimus wrote:
    You always hear that it's "cleaner" because of the CO2 emissions. But what about the depleted uranium? See, when they refine uranium 95% of it is garbage. The United States makes weapons out of the DU and contaminates the middle-east. So arguably it's not better.
    Is there any way to properly dispose of it?
  • RushlimboRushlimbo Posts: 832
    sourdough wrote:
    Is there any way to properly dispose of it?

    Start a war with Iran.
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • sourdoughsourdough Posts: 579
    Rushlimbo wrote:
    Start a war with Iran.
    Lets call that Plan B :) Here in Canada we wouldn't know where to start, but I guess we could sell it down south.

    France generates most of its power from nuclear plants. How do they deal with waste?
  • Gary CarterGary Carter Posts: 14,067
    sourdough wrote:

    France generates most of its power from nuclear plants. How do they deal with waste?
    sell it to iran, cause the french hate america. this is sarcasm people
    Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
    Sammi: Wanna just break up?

  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    sourdough wrote:
    Is there any way to properly dispose of it?

    According to this site http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/health/disposal/index.cfm

    They store it in drums in warehouses. Not sure how long they would have to keep it there, but Uranium's half-life is a few billion years. Of course they are converting it to UF6 uranium hexaflouride which is probably less radioactive.

    But I do know that GBU-28s and KES rounds are loaded with DU.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    sourdough wrote:
    Is there any way to properly dispose of it?

    Here is a pic http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/uf6/waste.gif
    http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/uf6/uf6v.htm
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • ScubascottScubascott Posts: 815
    sourdough wrote:
    Is there any way to properly dispose of it?

    I went on a guided tour of the nucelar reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney several years ago. They don't generate power there, they only produce isotopes for medical and research use, but they did give us a bit of talk on nuclear power and alternatives for waste disposal.

    Part of the research conducted there was the development of special material similar to concrete, which is mixed with the radioactive waste, effectively making it completely chemically inert (but still radioactive) and safe to store. The idea is that once it is in this form the waste can be safely put in a deep hole in the ground, without fear of it leaching into the water table etc, where the radioactivity will decay away over time. They also showed us the size of the 'lump' of radioactive waste material that would be generated per person over their entire lifetime if Australia was to be run purely on nuclear power. It was a cylinder about six or eight inches long and an inch in diameter.
    It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!

    -C Addison
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    Yeah, Scubascott, as far as I'm aware over 70% of Australians are against the use of nuclear as the way of the future for us here. (and I'm sorry, but I do remember hearing the statistic because it surprised me, but I can't remember where). Frankly, there are so many other options available to us, why would we go down this path? How it is that we are not harnessing most of our energy from solar power I will never know. Nuclear power is not something that I would ever embrace. As far as I'm concerned uranium is extremely dangerous and should be left in the ground.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • ScubascottScubascott Posts: 815
    sourdough wrote:
    I'm very torn about nuclear power. Partially cause I admit I'm a bit ignorant on the subject. However, I do think it can be used as a band-aid solution until we can develop better technology to generate power that does not emit greenhouse gasses or waste.

    I think this is pretty much how I feel about it.

    We obviously need to do something urgently to reduce emissions. If nuclear can fill the gap while we come up with better ideas then I don't think we should just reject the idea without even considering it.
    It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!

    -C Addison
  • Last ExodusLast Exodus Posts: 782
    Ahnimus wrote:
    You always hear that it's "cleaner" because of the CO2 emissions. But what about the depleted uranium? See, when they refine uranium 95% of it is garbage. The United States makes weapons out of the DU and contaminates the middle-east. So arguably it's not better.

    Send it to Canada. They have tons of room for it...
  • Last ExodusLast Exodus Posts: 782
    sourdough wrote:
    Lets call that Plan B :) Here in Canada we wouldn't know where to start, but I guess we could sell it down south.

    France generates most of its power from nuclear plants. How do they deal with waste?


    They make cheese out of it.
  • Last ExodusLast Exodus Posts: 782
    er...sorry....frommage.....
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Last Exodus wrote:
    Send it to Canada. They have tons of room for it...

    What gives you that impression?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Last ExodusLast Exodus Posts: 782
    Ahnimus wrote:
    What gives you that impression?


    mmmm....snow
  • ClimberInOzClimberInOz Posts: 216
    I'll add a few comments to this one...

    Firstly nuclear energy is cleaner- even in terms of radioactive emmisions. Coal powered plants emit more radioactive material then nuclear power plants, and that radioactive material is uncontained, unlike nuclear power stations.

    Of course, the waste from nuclear energy is more toxic and lasts a long time, even though it is contained. And the big danger is not in finding someplace to keep the radioactive material safe (especially in Australia, as we are by far the most geographically and poilitcally suitable country to store the waste), but in transporting it. I personally think that unless you can store the waste yourself, you should not be using nuclear energy.

    Nuclear power is not, however, the ultimate solution to all of our problems. It still produces some greenhouse gas emmisions (although not as many as coal), and uranium is still not a renewable resource.

    So I personally think that whilst nuclear energy is not an ideal option, it is an improvement on coal. Modern nuclear reactors are very safe, and can even handle things like planes being crashed into them and Homer Simpsons running them.

    I would like nuclear power introduced to Australia, in addition to a massive injection of funding into cleaner alternatives. Because despite what people say, we do not yet have the technology to supply Australia's energy needs from renewables alone.
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    ClimberInOz wrote:
    I'll add a few comments to this one...

    Firstly nuclear energy is cleaner- even in terms of radioactive emmisions. Coal powered plants emit more radioactive material then nuclear power plants, and that radioactive material is uncontained, unlike nuclear power stations.

    Of course, the waste from nuclear energy is more toxic and lasts a long time, even though it is contained. And the big danger is not in finding someplace to keep the radioactive material safe (especially in Australia, as we are by far the most geographically and poilitcally suitable country to store the waste), but in transporting it. I personally think that unless you can store the waste yourself, you should not be using nuclear energy.

    Nuclear power is not, however, the ultimate solution to all of our problems. It still produces some greenhouse gas emmisions (although not as many as coal), and uranium is still not a renewable resource.

    So I personally think that whilst nuclear energy is not an ideal option, it is an improvement on coal. Modern nuclear reactors are very safe, and can even handle things like planes being crashed into them and Homer Simpsons running them.

    I would like nuclear power introduced to Australia, in addition to a massive injection of funding into cleaner alternatives. Because despite what people say, we do not yet have the technology to supply Australia's energy needs from renewables alone.

    Well I agree with pretty much all of that, Climber except for the bit where you want it introduced here while they source other alternatives. Because once it's in there'll be no going back. And this country is just too beautiful to be the dumping ground for that vile crap. Leave it in the ground I say.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • ScubascottScubascott Posts: 815
    ClimberInOz wrote:

    Coal powered plants emit more radioactive material then nuclear power plants, and that radioactive material is uncontained, unlike nuclear power stations.

    I hadn't heard this one before. Is this purely C14? Or does it come from somewhere else in the process?
    It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!

    -C Addison
  • ClimberInOzClimberInOz Posts: 216
    Scubascott wrote:
    I hadn't heard this one before. Is this purely C14? Or does it come from somewhere else in the process?

    It comes from combustion of impurities in coal, such as uranium. I am not sure if the new generation of 'clean coal' power plants still emit the radioactive material in similar quantities, but he below text should give you some idea on the amount. Or click on the link for the full article.

    http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

    Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040, cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted to be:


    U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):
    Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)

    Thorium: 357,491 tons

    Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):

    Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)

    Thorium: 2,039,709 tons


    Radioactivity from Coal Combustion
    The main sources of radiation released from coal combustion include not only uranium and thorium but also daughter products produced by the decay of these isotopes, such as radium, radon, polonium, bismuth, and lead. Although not a decay product, naturally occurring radioactive potassium-40 is also a significant contributor.
  • ClimberInOzClimberInOz Posts: 216
    Jeanie wrote:
    Well I agree with pretty much all of that, Climber except for the bit where you want it introduced here while they source other alternatives. Because once it's in there'll be no going back. And this country is just too beautiful to be the dumping ground for that vile crap. Leave it in the ground I say.

    I can see that point of view as well. I am just more concerned about CO2 emmisions then the radioactive storage problem. Although ideally the government will soon begin investing enough in cleaner technologies that we don't need to decide between coal and nuclear.

    Either that or we find a way to sustain fusion without having to invest more energy then we get out of it!
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    ClimberInOz wrote:
    I can see that point of view as well. I am just more concerned about CO2 emmisions then the radioactive storage problem. Although ideally the government will soon begin investing enough in cleaner technologies that we don't need to decide between coal and nuclear.

    Either that or we find a way to sustain fusion without having to invest more energy then we get out of it!

    Yes, I guess the difficult thing is getting the government to make good, long term, sustainable decisions and to get on with it straight away. :)
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Last Exodus wrote:
    mmmm....snow

    You are going to have to fill in some blanks for me. You don't have snow where your at?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    australia doesn't need nuclear power. we have alternatives that should be explored. - wind power and solar power. we have vast tracts of land that can be given over to these greener alternatives. we have a manageable population that would allow such an endeavour. my thinking is the push to go nuclear is coming from the business community. who owns the transport. who owns or will own the storage facilities for the nuclear waste. can revenue be generated by storing waste for other countries. i would also hazard a guess and say that this push is coming from outside australia.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    catefrances wrote:
    australia doesn't need nuclear power. we have alternatives that should be explored. - wind power and solar power. we have vast tracts of land that can be given over to these greener alternatives. we have a manageable population that would allow such an endeavour. my thinking is the push to go nuclear is coming from the business community. who owns the transport. who owns or will own the storage facilities for the nuclear waste. can revenue be generated by storing waste for other countries. i would also hazard a guess and say that this push is coming from outside australia.

    EXACTLY cate!!!
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • DinghyDogDinghyDog Posts: 587
    edited November 2012
    -
    Post edited by DinghyDog on
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    DinghyDog wrote:
    nuclear power is definitely NOT the wat to go.

    I have read up a fair bit on it. it is true that it is the only source of power that will cut greenhouse gases significantly while providing enough energy.

    did you know that no plant actually has ever been decomissioned? the only ones that are shut down are the ones that have melted down (3mile island and chernobyl). so there are a lot of decommissioning issues that need to be sorted out.

    oftentimes i tell myself waste is not a problem. but it is. we cant get around the fact that the dangerous period of decay lasts for 1000s of years. firstly, you need security to transport it. then you need reliable transport. then you need a disposable site. no one can guarantee that 50,000 years from now waste that is even as much as 4km deep, won't come back to bite us in the bum.

    furthermore, every plant produces waste products that can quite simply be used to make bombs. every plant provides another source for the wrong people to get material from. its just not worth the risk.

    in a country like australia, there is no reason why renewable energy can't sustain us. we can put massive solar arrays into the desert on such a scale that transmission losses don't even matter.

    when i build my own home one day, it will be totally self-sustainable in terms of power. you can get kits that combine wind and solar power to supply any house, in the country or even in town where you can feed back to the grid.

    we're thinking of building in the bush where it will be cheaper to build in solar and wind power than to extend the mainline supply.

    check it out here -

    http://solaronlineaust.yahoostore.com.au/page/solarwind_hybrid_systems.html

    most interesting read i have come accross in a while.

    That was really interesting DingyDog. Wish it was easier and cheaper to get solar and wind power options in the suburbs. Oh and I agree with everything you said. :)
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • DinghyDogDinghyDog Posts: 587
    edited November 2012
    -
    Post edited by DinghyDog on
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    DinghyDog wrote:
    and isn't it ridiculous how little the government rebates for solar power costs?! the only way to do it is in a new home where you can roll the cost into your finance. maybe chop off a room to save money and spend it on the solar stuff. i think on existing homes solar hot water could be a start. we (as in my missus and myself) need to be much more energy conscious... i feel bad when i see lights left on or the tv running, etc.


    Yeah, exactly DD! But then look at all the bullshit we have gone through just to be able to get tanks back into suburban back yards!!

    And I can't help wondering, given just how much industry and irrigators are contributing to this water crisis, if all the pissy little savings that we make as individuals is really adding up to bugger all. I mean you've only got to drive through the city of an evening to see just how many lights are on. That can't be doing much good surely?
    Yeah, I really think they need to wake up and make some real effort to encouraging people. But they just keep coming up with crap like nuclear power plants and recycled sewage as drinking water! :eek:
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • ScubascottScubascott Posts: 815
    Jeanie wrote:
    Yeah, exactly DD! But then look at all the bullshit we have gone through just to be able to get tanks back into suburban back yards!!

    And I can't help wondering, given just how much industry and irrigators are contributing to this water crisis, if all the pissy little savings that we make as individuals is really adding up to bugger all. I mean you've only got to drive through the city of an evening to see just how many lights are on. That can't be doing much good surely?
    Yeah, I really think they need to wake up and make some real effort to encouraging people. But they just keep coming up with crap like nuclear power plants and recycled sewage as drinking water! :eek:

    Hang on. What's wrong with recycled sewage as drinking water? I think we shold absolutely be recycling water, at the very least for industrial use.
    It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!

    -C Addison
Sign In or Register to comment.