Australia's Nuclear Power 'Debate'

Scubascott

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?

sourdough

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.

Ahnimus

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.

sourdough

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?

Rushlimbo

sourdough wrote:

Is there any way to properly dispose of it?

Start a war with Iran.

sourdough

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 Carter

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

Ahnimus

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.

Ahnimus

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

Scubascott

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.

Jeanie

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.

Scubascott

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.

Last Exodus

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 Exodus

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 Exodus

er...sorry....frommage.....

Ahnimus

Last Exodus wrote:

Send it to Canada. They have tons of room for it...

What gives you that impression?

Last Exodus

Ahnimus wrote:

What gives you that impression?

mmmm....snow

ClimberInOz

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.

Jeanie

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.

Scubascott

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?

ClimberInOz

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.