Nuclear Energy In Australia

[FPV 521]

All I know is Im in NZ and the nearest we will get to anything involving radiation would be the microwave in the kitchen. or except fall out from when the reactor you guys might get blows up.

[sixfan]

We must have a lot of nuclear scientists on this site.

I don't support it as a viable energy alternative, at the moment, because:

- I don't believe the technology is fool-proof enough to be safe. Accidents happen. Even if we locate a nuclear plant in the desert (what about the enormous loss / waste of energy in transmission lines?), the radioactivity from an accident could spread to major population centres quite easily (especially given the prevailing west-to-east weather patterns, which would blow it all straight over the Eastern states)

←

How many people died as a result of the “worst tragedy ever” that was Chernobyl?  More people have died in workplace accidents in the last few months alone in Australia.

←

Oh, its only a few deaths, that's all right then, nothing to worry about. I don't know how many people died as a result of Chermobyl, or how many are yet to die, over the next few hundred years, because of increased cancers, or how many won't be born because of genetic defects, etc. How many energy technologies have the capability to cause death and illness, on a mass scale and over such a time scale, if something goes wrong? I know where I'd rather invest my tax dollars in the development of energy alternatives.

- re-processing and storing the waste will be hugely expensive, a cost that cannot be justified when alternative sources of energy that don't generate as much waste (and are certaintly not as toxic) are available.

←

Effectively counter-balanced by the inexpensive fuel to begin with

←

As opposed to, say, solar?

- nuclear plants are built largely out of concrete and steel. Making both uses huge amounts of electricity. On balance, its likely that a move to nuclear would cause an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, not a decrease.

←

Initially perhaps, but not that much more than the equivalent output coal fired station

←

As reported in the newspaper today, the energy consumed in building a nuclear plant is currently so great that we would need to operate it for 40 years before we started to break-even on greenhouse gas emissions. Which is, oh, about 10 years more than the normal design life of much of the infrastructure... If greenhouse really is the driver, we may not be able to wait that long either.

- nuclear energy generation is just a fancy way of boiling water to make steam, which drives the turbines that make the electricity. Where is the water going to come from, in this largely drought-stricken land?

←

As opposed to coal-fired???  Same basic principle, but the only waste released from nuclear stations directly into the atmosphere is steam.

←

True, but the water issue rules out many potential locations in this country. We'd have to build it close to where the water is, which means near the coast, where 97% of Australians live. So, we'd be taking drinking water that we don't have, and placing the plant right next to population centres.

I'm not ruling it out forever, but nuclear technology needs to improve by an order of magnitude before I'd support it.

←

Technology for everything could always continually improve to be safer, but Australia would have to be one of the last developed countries to use nuclear power generation – are we really smart or very misguided?

←

Perhaps, but the USA hasn't built a new nuclear power station since the mid-1970's, and no one there has ordered a new one since 1973. Indeed the proportion of energy derived from nuclear is predicted to steadily decline at a global scale over the next decade or two. I just think the consequences of failure / accidents with nuclear energy are so fundamentally different from other energy sources that we have to insist it is MUCH safer from the start. Even if it could be made safer, why not invest in alternatives that don't have such consequences to start with, such as solar, wind or geothermal; or other stuff that pays for itself, such as energy efficiency; or even improving existing technologies by looking at coal gassification? A couple of billion dollars (the estimated cost of a 1,000MW nuclear plant) could achieve a lot in these areas.

This multiple quoting is getting quite complicated, isn't it?

←

Please dont claim alternative methods are "safe". Coal mines in Aust have killed more people than Lucas heights ever has. Fact. It's not just beaconsfield type accidents, it's Black lung etc that goes on killing long after the miner's out of the hole. Solar and wind are quite impractical at the moment, best solution would be nuclear fusion, but that's still a pipe dream.

[aniken]

Please dont claim alternative methods are "safe".

←

Didn't realise I did .

Nothing is perfectly safe. But, relative to nuclear, I'd say the alternatives are definitely safer.

[no turbo]

Chernobyl BAAAHHHHH.. 20 years ago!!! in laymens terms, just think back then the polies shut down the big 3 for so called "290 kw supercars" now an 18yr old can buy a typhoon and kill you and your family in one. its called development!!!! just develop neuclear science to have better control measures.

[sixfan]

Please dont claim alternative methods are "safe".

←

Didn't realise I did .

Nothing is perfectly safe. But, relative to nuclear, I'd say the alternatives are definitely safer.

←

[/quote/]

what alternatives? There is no comparable method of energy generation based on cost + volume of waste products produced.

So are you saying that no matter what nuclear power is always going to be less safe, than the "alternatives" or just that your believe that the current safety levels are inadequate?

[tab]

This multiple quoting is getting quite complicated, isn't it?

←

yep....you win Annie

[Antisocial]

I like this place...

You can have enthusiastic...reasonably will informed intelligent discussions on many varied topics without it all truning to a pissing contest.

Unless the discussion strays to Saleens Mum or Supras.

Perhaps if I cant convince you on the technical merit of the human cost of a POTENTIAL disaster, how about from an economic standpoint.

As Ani said the infrastucture costs of seting up a nuclear plant are massive, what about the 100's of billions of dollars to clean it all up should it go pear shaped.

Russia is a far bigger and resource wealthier country than Oz and have vested interests from the nearby europeans to foot the cleanup bill.

Were are all by ourselves, no one will give 2 hoots if the continent remains a uninhabited dust bowl for a few centuries.

Still think its worth a try, without looking at all the other alternatives first?

[tab]

I like this place...

You can have enthusiastic...reasonably will informed intelligent discussions on many varied topics without it all truning to a pissing contest.

←

idiot!

Still think its worth a try, without looking at all the other alternatives first?

←

It’s inevitable isn’t it?

You could always migrate to the sovereign nation of Lumpy Land!

[sixfan]

Were are all by ourselves, no one will give 2 hoots if the continent remains a uninhabited dust bowl for a few centuries.

←

Pssst......

Most of this country ALREADY IS an unihabitable dustbowl.

[aniken]

what alternatives? There is no comparable method of energy generation based on cost + volume of waste products produced.

←

Solar, wind, coal or gas-fired. As I said earlier, throw $2 billion into R&D of these technologies, and I bet their efficiency and cost-effectiveness will improve significantly. And they don't have the same risks to start with.

So are you saying that no matter what nuclear power is always going to be less safe, than the "alternatives"?

←

Currently less safe: definitely

Less safe for all time: probably

Safety can be bought, of course, and perhaps a clever engineer will develop a fool-proof design in the future.

For most forms of energy generation, however, I firmly believe the harmful consequences of accidents, misshaps, incompetence etc. are going to be limited to people in the immediate area, and that the danger persists for a short period of time (measured in weeks or months, at worst). As opposed to nuclear.

If the solar panel on a roof cracks, the only risk of death is the person that has to climb up and fix it (and maybe the person they fall on). If the turbine on a wind generator falls off, the only risk would be to someone that happened to be standing under it at the time. A fire in a gas-fired power station? Well, Longford in Victoria burnt for what, a week? Sure as hell there is no risk today that persists because that explosion happened (and yes I know its not an electricity generating facility).

or just that your believe that the current safety levels are inadequate?

←

Currently: Yes

For all time: who knows. But, why take the risk / spend the effort trying if we can develop and improve solar etc?