Nuclear Energy In Australia

[Mondie]

I also agree with Lawsy's waste management strategy.

←

If Geo Dynamics can drill a hole 5ks deep to get an energy source than they could drill one to dump the waste as well....I'm with Lawsy, the only people knocking are the ones that know f*ck all...

←

How do you bury the waste 5kms down and know that the containers arent eventually going to leak. Its not as simple as it appears on the surface, since you know so much please tell us?

We would be a nation of tools to go down the nuclear path now. Geodynamics are on the verge of proving up a project with potential to generate massive amounts of electricity. Why do you think the government is constantly handing over millions to them. We have huge gas supplies which we sell overseas when we could use it to generate electricity, instead we use dirty coal. To go Nuclear now would be a cop out.

[sixfan]

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?

←

Solar calls are pretty close to75% efficency now so there's only another 10-20% that you can get out them no matter how much money you spend. they are neither cheap or clean to produce and just don't have the capacity to solve the increasing energy demands.

What exactly are you afraid of with a nuclear power plant?

meltdowns are a thing of the past.

if you want to invest billions into an alternative energy source, I suggest nuclear fusion as a good place to put your money, it has the POTENTIAL to produce vast amounts of energy with no waste.

[aniken]

Not so long ago, the computer power residing in your mobile phone would have required a whole network of PCs to do the same job, at the same speed. R&D since then has enabled enormous advances in computer power, whilst reducing size. That's the kind of improvement I'm thinking about when I say put more effort into non-nuclear energy alternatives.

Its not fear of nuclear power. Its sensible risk aversion.

[Paradoxx]

Where did I put that can of worms...

[harvyk]

Solar calls are pretty close to75% efficency now so there's only another 10-20% that you can get out them no matter how much money you spend.  they are neither cheap or clean to produce and just don't have the capacity to solve the increasing energy demands.

←

But you could also say their 100% more efficent than simply letting the suns energy go to waste.

I remember a few years back an idea was floated which was to turn our roads into solar collectors. For not the cost of to much more instead of laying down bitumen they could lay down solar collectors. Hook these up to the electricity grid and we’d get power without having to take large amounts of land for a solar farm. The collectors apparently have about as much grip in them as the current road surfaces so them been slippery wouldn’t be a problem.

Here is a solution which would allow for cheap power generation during daylight hours which wouldn’t cost anywhere near as much as a nuclear plant...

[harvyk]

Where did I put that can of worms...

←

Don't worry, we're just doing that big debate that John Howard wants. We really should be asking for tax payer money to help fund this debate...

[Antisocial]

Solar calls are pretty close to75% efficency now so there's only another 10-20% that you can get out them no matter how much money you spend.  they are neither cheap or clean to produce and just don't have the capacity to solve the increasing energy demands.

←

But you could also say their 100% more efficent than simply letting the suns energy go to waste.

I remember a few years back an idea was floated which was to turn our roads into solar collectors. For not the cost of to much more instead of laying down bitumen they could lay down solar collectors. Hook these up to the electricity grid and we’d get power without having to take large amounts of land for a solar farm. The collectors apparently have about as much grip in them as the current road surfaces so them been slippery wouldn’t be a problem.

Here is a solution which would allow for cheap power generation during daylight hours which wouldn’t cost anywhere near as much as a nuclear plant...

←

Not sure what a solar call is but modern solar PV (photovoltaic) cells are nowhere near that efficient, commercially available cells are acutally around 13% efficient so there is plenty of room for improvement.

The other drawback it that they only make power when the sun shines, and output peaks at midday. Yet demand for electricity peaks at 7am and 6pm so until we find an efficient way to store energy, we will need more than just solar.

Having said that I love solar and have a small PV system on my house for powering light lights in the bath rooms, hallways, and front door and back stairs.

The excess power in summer is used to power a pump to water the garden from the rainwater tank.

My next house will have a grid connect system, but in a effort to promote alternative engery the govt is abolishing the rebate on installing such systems..

[RAPHOON]

Finland has been generating power from Nuclear energy for a long time. No accidents, no waste issues, just a clever use of technology. They have even taken the next step in harnessing energy, the post electricity generation by product.

Have you noticed that whenever the media show footage of an Aussie coal fired power generation plant, you see 2 sets of chimneys?

- 1 for the atmosphere destroying by-product of coal burning.

- 1 for the steam as it comes through the turbines, post electricity generation.

In Finland (most of Scandinavia) you'll won't see the coal or the steam stacks. The coal has been replaced by a nuclear reactor in the last millenium. The steam stack? Well that's where the real clever stuff comes in. Instead of venting the steam into the atmosphere, they channel the super heater steam back into a network of pipees which runs into every house in a given city. The energy is then piped through heat exhange systems in each house to warm up not only the hot water baing used, but to heat the rest of the house in winter (-10 to -50C) as well.

Now THAT's using your head.

[Scruffman]

Hey guys

Check out this place

the world Nuclear Association. Check out how many nuclear installations are located all round the world.

All these 5 minute experts that always bring up teh one bad example. If we all thought about one bad thing we would never drive cars or fly in planes or do many other things.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/wgs/decom/dat...orsdb_index.php

Nuclear is a viable safe adn effective form of power generation that is a good way forward for australia in my opinion

Scruff

[Mondie]

Finland has been generating power from Nuclear energy for a long time.  No accidents, no waste issues, just a clever use of technology.

←

The same thing could have been said about Russia up until 1985 as an argument too. The Concorde used to be the only large commerical passenger aircraft with a perfect safety record up until a few years ago. It only takes one accident to change the course of history.