Nuclear Power in Australia

[shaggerz]

I am well aware this is a controversial topic, but one I quite enjoy discussing. So, rather than try and type everything I know on the subject, its much quicker for me to just discuss each point as it is brought up.

Do you support nuclear power in Australia? Why?

[vr_owner]

im all for it if theres sufficient protection and its well away from a well populated area from animals and humans.

[maxy0987]

Im all for it, purely because it seems like the bloody obvious way to go.

It's cleaner and more efficient than current options, has more of a future and will also allow us to make money if we chose to sell it overseas.

I think with the systems these days security wont be a problem, meltdowns etc shouldn't be an issue any more. Id be happy to have either 1 massive plant in the outback someplace that supplied all of Australia, or maybe smaller ones for each state (more likely), depends how they want to push it.

[Garth]

im all for it

as a electrician i see all forms of power and power usage, i have a great interest in generation of power, and different ways we can do it.


solar and wind power is such a huge outlay at the start, and just not a viable option.
coal or oil fired power stations are pumping out that much co2 it's not funny, not to mention all the other crap they do, and it uses heaps of water

nuclear power still uses water to cool things, but it's a cleaner form of heat production. there is less steam loss threw turbine rotation, and it cools quicker than normal steam. im all for nuclear power,

[Reaper]

I am well aware this is a controversial topic, but one I quite enjoy discussing. So, rather than try and type everything I know on the subject, its much quicker for me to just discuss each point as it is brought up.

Do you support nuclear power in Australia? Why?

I am a supporter of nuclear power but think the wording of your poll cannot give an objective result.

Reaper

[Reaper]

im all for it

as a electrician i see all forms of power and power usage, i have a great interest in generation of power, and different ways we can do it.


solar and wind power is such a huge outlay at the start, and just not a viable option.
coal or oil fired power stations are pumping out that much co2 it's not funny, not to mention all the other crap they do, and it uses heaps of water

nuclear power still uses water to cool things, but it's a cleaner form of heat production. there is less steam loss threw turbine rotation, and it cools quicker than normal steam. im all for nuclear power,

Actually the capital cost of nuclear power makes all of the above look like chicken feed. The cost per kw hour after the plant is built is extremely low. Spread the capital cost over the total output in the life of the plant and the cost per hour are slightly higher than most other methods of generation. Of course you also need to factor the cost of finance on top of this figure.

From what I have read, the real benefits are environmental. Nuclear have virtually zero emissions when compared to coal, gas or even many of the co-gen plants around. The major issues with wind and solar are the relatively small amounts of power you generate per unit. Most of Australia would need to be covered in solar panels and windmills to give enough base load to the grid, let alone the peak load. Solar does have the potential to get better as solar technology improves however it has a long way to go and will always be an issue when it's dark.

Reaper

[SICK SS]

I work in the coal indusrty my job is to dig big holes in the ground and rape mother nature of her black goodness lol so i dont suport the nuclear power

[J_D]

Here is a website on the subject I found interesting.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/

About 30% of the worlds power is currently supplied by nuclear reactors and there have been no major problems with any of them since Chernobyl. I often wander where we would be now if Chernobyl didnt happen and the knee jerk reaction against nuclear power hadnt occured. There could possibly of been a lot more plants already running and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving economies of scale to bring down the capital and running costs.

I find it amazing that human kind is so illogical that if one big event occurs(Chernobyl, September 11 etc)we will spend massive amounts of manpower and money fighting that thing but if the deaths are spread out no one gives a ****. Car crashes kill more people every year than nuclear power ever could but most people arent calling for cars to be banned or fearing every time they get behind the wheel, its just an accepted risk. Cigarettes kill more people than "terrorists" ever could but we dont have a war on tobacco and go out slashing tobacco fields and burning them and locking up people who smoke and shooting the tobacco "dealers" etc.

[walesy]

to be honest i dont know much about the pros and cons of nuclear power so i cant really say if im for or against it

[calais_304]

at the moment im all for it, but i don't know to much about this nuclear power so i'll be watching this thread closely.
im all for it because i do believe this is the way will eventually go and if it will lower emmissions and be a better power so to say then lets get it going.

[shaggerz]

TBH I used to think it was dangerous, but with it being brought up as an issue for Australia to consider I set out to find out as much as I could about the subject... and where better to start than the incident everyone knows... Chernobyl. I have seen a couple of documentaries on Chernobyl and exactly what happened and I must say it was so comforting to know exactly what went wrong and why... to look at modern power plants and worry that the same will happen is laughable it makes me smile knowing just how safe it is now.

Having said that, Chernobyl was absolutely catastrophic and will continue to be an environmental problem with no solution for hundreds of years. Chernobyl is uninhabitable to this day and to go to the site itself means a radiation suit and limiting your time there to just a few minutes before getting the hell away.

Quite a scary thought, but despite that horror, I am still in full support of nuclear power (after finding out the facts) and I would even go so far as to say YES! build a power station close to me, I would be proud to have it nearby.

[ProphetVX]

I'm a massive advocate of nuclear power.

Contrary to what many believe, its far safer than all other "viable" options out there (no wind and solar power do not count, because they cannot power massive grids consistently).

The only problem is waste, but we live in the largest country in the world that is vastly unpopulated or uninhabitable, we have a playground for waste, if disposed of correctly.

We should get in on it as fast as possible. 80% of France is powered by nuclear power, and there are 1000's worldwide, but we'll always have that chernobyl "nuclear boogeyman" looming in the minds of our citizens.

[calais_304]

The only problem is waste, but we live in the largest country in the world that is vastly unpopulated or uninhabitable, we have a playground for waste, if disposed of correctly.

how is the waste being disposed of now? is it true that it just sits in those barrels and just gets stocked up then it just gets dumped? whats the go?


cheers

[Ripcell]

we studied nuclear power in physics for 6 months. the pros doubly out weigh the cons

im all for it

[kalais6]

Totally all for it.
Considering that in many ways, we really wont have much of a choice once the conventional fossil fuels currently used begin to dry out, and also for the fact that bar anything going wrong, nuclear power generation is better for the environment.
Admittedly the waste is the sole biggest issue but as stated, how sparsely populated is this continent ?? Pretty sure we could find somewhere for it.

[J_D]

how is the waste being disposed of now? is it true that it just sits in those barrels and just gets stocked up then it just gets dumped? whats the go?


cheers

No high level waste has been disposed of at this point anywhere in the world, it all sits in holding ponds or in barrels until a viable and safe way of disposal has been found. America is making a repository for high level nuclear waste in the rocky mountains but it will take many years to complete and there is some uncertainty as to if it is actually safe or not.

[calais_304]

No high level waste has been disposed of at this point anywhere in the world, it all sits in holding ponds or in barrels until a viable and safe way of disposal has been found. America is making a repository for high level nuclear waste in the rocky mountains but it will take many years to complete and there is some uncertainty as to if it is actually safe or not.

oh fair enough then, i think that alone would put alot of people off, especially the greenies , anyway if they found a way to dispose of it safely i'd be more then happy to see it get underway

[J_D]

The main safety concern with the rocky mountains relates to the geology of the mountains which are semi porous rock and lie in an area where earthquakes occur which could possibly allow radioactive waste to reach the water table. The containers that will store the waste are engineered to last thousands of years so if suitable geology is found disposal should be quite safe.

[burnz]

no i'm a miss imformed puppet
i cannot justifie the expence on the household budget

[burnz]

I'm a massive advocate of nuclear power.

Contrary to what many believe, its far safer than all other "viable" options out there (no wind and solar power do not count, because they cannot power massive grids consistently).

The only problem is waste, but we live in the largest country in the world that is vastly unpopulated or uninhabitable, we have a playground for waste, if disposed of correctly.

We should get in on it as fast as possible. 80% of France is powered by nuclear power, and there are 1000's worldwide, but we'll always have that chernobyl "nuclear boogeyman" looming in the minds of our citizens.

as for solar a lot of houses are powered and resell the excess back to the grid

[Julie]

I am undecided at the moment. My biggest concern with it would be security, and the potential devastation that would be encountered if it was to become a terrorist target. I'm not too comfortable with the idea of a nuclear power plant around here when we have muslim extremists preaching here and inciting jihad and offering their children as soldiers so they can die as martyrs.

[shaggerz]

I am undecided at the moment. My biggest concern with it would be security, and the potential devastation that would be encountered if it was to become a terrorist target. I'm not too comfortable with the idea of a nuclear power plant around here when we have muslim extremists preaching here and inciting jihad and offering their children as soldiers so they can die as martyrs.

The terrorist threat is one that a lot of people think about these days but a few years ago may not have considered. Actually nuclear plants are pretty much impossible to damage through acts of terrorism. I have seen the results of impact tests where a jumbo jet (Boeing 757 I think the test aircraft was) was flown into a replica concrete containment structure that is typically used in a nuclear power plant. the concrete structure is somewhere near 10 meters thick of concrete. The 757 was flown into this concrete structure at the fastest speed it can possibly fly accurately at low altitudes, and the depth of containment structure penetration was measured... the result? 30 centimetres lol. The plane just disintegrated on impact. Another possibility is that terrorists might be able to steal nuclear material from the plant to use in weapons. In fact, weapons grade uranium needs to be enriched to 99% purity, whereas uranium used in power plants is only enriched to 1 to 3%. All that happens if you bring power production grade uranium to critical mass is it gets really hot and melts! It is physically impossible to make it explode. The reason the plant at Chernobyl exploded was that a critical mass did exist and overheated the core, which caused excessive steam pressure, which blew the roof off the reactor building (which by a horrible design oversight, was completely exposed and had no containment structure around it at all... it was just like any other building).

Its also possible to use thorium reactors instead of uranium, which is even safer again! thorium can never reach critical mass... it requires constant injection of energy from an external source to keep the reaction going, and as a result, its impossible to explode, and it wont even get hot and melt... it will just slowly die out like a camp fire. As an added benefit, thorium reactors produce far less dangerous radioactive waste, and the time before it becomes safe is as little as 500 years (sounds like a long time but uranium reactors waste is hazardous for around 10,000 years)

More on the waste, it obviously can't be neutralised using any current technology, but when you consider that every year THOUSANDS of tons of waste is tossed into the air by coal fired power stations, and this waste contains plenty of the very radioactive elements that people tend to be so terrified of, simply blasted into the sky and left to rain down on the surrounding area. When you keep this in mind, its nice to know that although the waste is extremely hazardous, an average sized nuclear power plant produces only about one cubic metre of waste a year. Such a tiny volume in comparison! This high level waste would be typically stored in a manner that suits Australia perfectly. It would be shipped in sealed containers out to the middle of the desert, where a facility would be constructed by drilling a tunnel 100 metres underground, then from the central point at the bottom of this tunnel, more tunnels are drilled in a three dimensional asterisk formation... like a starburst outwards from the end of this initial tunnel... each point of this huge three dimensional asterisk would be loaded up with waste (it would take many years to fill just one chamber) and when full, the whole tunnel is filled up with concrete replacing the rock that was dug out to create the tunnel. This way, the waste is inaccessible and securely stored in a place where it is practically guaranteed never to come into contact with another living thing for thousands of years.

Waste disposal is treated with the same caution as every other aspect of nuclear power production today... and that is to go to extremes to ensure its safety. I think that Chernobyl actually served the purpose of ensuring that nuclear power was forever guaranteed to be safe a hundred times over. Its just unfortunate that the public has not recovered from the stigma that Chernobyl attached to the word "nuclear".

The accident at three mile island actually confirms the safety of modern plants. A very similar chain of events occured there but due to the concrete containment structure, nobody was even injured, let alone killed, and there was no environmental legacy left behind! It was a case of "oops... somethings gone wrong, oh well at least we can clean it up with mop and bucket and everything is back to how it was, no harm done"

[Lumps of cheese]

Great thread!
I'm also undecided so i'll also be watching what other people say so i may learn a little bit!

[Joe Peeps]

I am undecided at the moment. My biggest concern with it would be security, and the potential devastation that would be encountered if it was to become a terrorist target. I'm not too comfortable with the idea of a nuclear power plant around here when we have muslim extremists preaching here and inciting jihad and offering their children as soldiers so they can die as martyrs.

Oh, we cant have a nuclear power plant because it could be a terrorist target for Muslim extremeists ROFL. Some perspective please...

On topic - I also studied Nuclear Power in physics, and formed the conclusions that its a superior option to brown coal. I think a mass investment in solar power technology is where we should be looking for a more enviromentally friendly option, but this will never happen with the current cost of fuels but the pendulum will swing soon enough

[shaggerz]

Solar power is great for the environment cause its almost free energy, but the setup and maintenance costs are phenomenal and there is the problem of night time lol. Can't quite store that energy overnight...

I heard somewhere that if it were possible to cover the surfaces of every road in Australia with solar panels that would produce enough electricity to use electrolysis to create hydrogen fuel that for a hydrogen car that would replace every car on the road today... obviously thats a flawed analysis also lol but hey... money means NOTHING if you're dead, and thats where we'll all be if something doesnt change soon.