The nuclear debate...

[Peter Ward]

How much "hot" nuclear waste do you think you'd need to store, after 10 years of nuclear power plant production (assuming the lastest fast reactor technologies).

a) a small mountain
b) several train loads
c) volume equivalent to a household refrigerator
d) volume equivalent to a lunchbox

The answer is? (I enjoy seeing healthy discussions! :) )

[AG Hybrid]

As much as Id like to say. The parliment house in Canberra LOL(thats option e) by the way, in really small font - really hard to see). How much waste does the latest fast reactor technologies produce per day? Is it a small, medium, large reactor?

[cwjohn]

That would be about 2000 metric tonnes of intermediate waste and 100 ton of high level waste globally. In the next 10 years the technology to recycle the intermediate waste will be developed. Best guess would be around 500-1000 metric tonnes globally over ten years. In other words several train loads.

[multiweb]

Hard to tell because the super phoenix line of plants recycle a lot of the waste coming out of the conventional plants (and that was more than 15yrs ago so god knows what they do now). Given that the French government made a very lucrative business of storing a lot of nuclear waste from all over the world in Normandy next to "la hague" I'd say it doesn't take much room at all. Only transit and shipping the stuff around is a real potential risk.

[Peter Ward]

I was reliably informed by a woking nuclear engineer (no, he wasn't working in Oz) you could store the really hot waste in a space equivalent to a domestic refrigerator

....so the answer, according to him at least, is (c) (I'll also accept 42)

[Hagar]

What does this all mean? You have a refrigerator that has the ability to kill half the world with one leak? What about all the low grade waste which is still very dangerous but doesn't require quite the containment protocols of the high grade waste.

:help:Sounds like my wifes cooking.:help:

[Peter Ward]

Well the conversation went along the lines of the "hot" stuff is the stuff that ionizes...and keeps on doing it for a few 100K years.

It can however be encased in Synthrock and dropped down a deep shaft....say a few 100k south of Tennant Creek...and shouldn't bother anyone for a *very* long time.

Low level stuff has a short half life, and becomes benign after a few hours to a few months. This is usually stored on site.

Funny you should mention cooking!

Do you have a grantie benchtop?

If you do, almost certainly it is radioactive.... (but only a little)

[Waxing_Gibbous]

Peter,
I didn't know Woking had a nuclear plant. Just F1 types. Ineresting! :D
I'm pro-nuke. The more the merrier. St. Kilda is my favoured site.
Hiss-boo to coal and oil!

[mswhin63]

I am not entirely pro nuke but we need immediate action against coal at least. I can't wait till they develop fusion, similar but safer I believe.

[multiweb]

:lol: Very ineresting indeed! ;)

[supernova1965]

I am not advocating this a solution to the waste problem because I don't know enough about the results of doing such a thing and I feel it would probably be bad. What would happen if you tossed this waste into the sun :question:

[multiweb]

oohhh....way too dangerous to lift off with nuclear waste in the first place and expensive too. Rocket launchs do go wrong sometimes. Safer to dig deep and leave it there. :)

[mswhin63]

Fond this WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste interesting it mentions the impact death rates on different power generation system in the opening paragraph.

[supernova1965]

I hadn't even considered Liftoff OOPS:eyepop: but just for curiosity sake what would it do to the sun:shrug::confused2:

[renormalised]

Just as Peter said...anyone who has a granite benchtop in their kitchen has a very small number of neutrons and alpha particle bombarding them every day. Most of the rocks in the earth's crust contain varying amount of uranium and other radioactive substances. Granites especially. If you look at a granite thin section under a microscope, you'll notice that maybe some of the minerals that are present (usually biotite, zircon, some feldspars, some of the pyroxenes etc) have what looks like little burn marks in the crystals. Those burn marks (called radioactive halos and fission tracks) are caused by radioactive minerals that get embedded in their crystalline structure. They corrupt the surrounding crystal structure as the minerals grow around them.

As a matter of fact, each and every person on this planet receives more background radiation from natural radioactive decay of substances in the soils and rocks (and in the air as well) than what you would ever get from standing next to a working nuclear power plant. In actual fact, you get more from shaking hands with someone than from a power plant!!.

Every living thing is radioactive:D

[avandonk]

It really depends on what you call hot Peter. Why are reactor rods stored in water. You can see the Cherenkov radiation (the blue glow) in any bit of footage of reactor rods under storage.

To put all the really hot waste from a reactor in the one smalll place is asking for trouble.

Japans nuclear industry used unqualified workers for short shifts and for a short time for the really dangerous work of dissolving Uranium 235 Hexafluoride in nitric acid. These really ignorant workers were told to only dissolve small amounts at a time. They thought they could speed up the process by increasing the amounts they dissolved at the one time.

The major problem with scaling up the amount is the contents of the container go critical ie a run away thermonuclear reaction. This reaction stops after the massive amounts of radiation and heat are generated and the whole lot boils and disperses so stopping the reaction.

All the workers died and there was a massive cover up until it happened again.

If the waste is not a problem why did the Americans dig huge tunnels in the Yucca mountains and have never stored any radioactive waste there due to local concerns.

Bert

PS If they had nuclear reactors in JC's day 98% of the dangerous waste would still be here!

[Solanum]

Indeed, and that's not to mention radon gas coming out of those rocks in some areas either. There again, it may be only one hit from a high energy particle in the wrong place, be they from cosmic rays, granite, or standing next to a nuclear power station, and that's your terminal cancer started. Lucky the risk from a single particle is vanishingly small, but they do add up....

I think the risk isn't from a working nuclear plant, it's the leaks (gas, water, solids, whatever). I doubt there's a plant in the world that has never had a leak and it's not exactly information that plant owners or governments advertise. It's not been a problem in Australia, but it certainly has in the UK. There is a long history of nuclear leaks in the UK and not many of them were admitted at the time. In the 70's and 80's there would regularly be lumps of high risk material washing up on the beach near Sellafield (Windscale, whatever they were calling it before they finally shut it down), although that was a re-processing plant not a power plant. Still, those risks can be estimated and allowed for, but it all puts up the price and makes it less economic...

[avandonk]

Our DNA repair systems are quite capable of coping with a small load of natural environmental radiation. In fact we evolved with this as a part of our natural environment.

It is only when the ionizing radiation damages even just one cell or number of cells beyond the capability of the DNA repair systems do we suffer mutagenisis and then carcinogenesis. These mechanisms are not fully understood but the devastating incidence of many cancers are real.

Cancer is most probably a combination of all the assaults on our defence systems by not just radiation but man made chemicals that never existed in nature and what is worse the synergystic effects of all these chemicals is poorly understood. The effects in utero are where even parts per billion are having an effect.

I will stop now.

Bert

[marki]

While I understand the importance of using nuclear reactors to generate isotopes for medical and industrial purposes I do not support the wide use of nuclear fuels to provide energy to the masses. The technology to go renewable is already available at a cost. 2 or three years ago I watched a catalyst program which showcased research carried out by either ANU or Monash (cannot remember which?) in developing cost efficient photovoltaic cells. These clever chaps had managed to develop a process in which the cells could be produced at about 10 - 20% the cost of current versions. How? They made a cutting device that could slice waffers at 1/10th the thickness of anyone else. We all know it is not the thickness of the panel but the surface area that counts so they could produce ten waffers form the same amount of material used to make one. If these solar panels were used in conjunction with hydrogen fuel cells it would be possible to deliver all our energy needs based on currently available technology. We have large areas of uninhabited arid land with excellent exposure to the year round sun and the nett pollution is zero if the hydrogen, oxygen and water are kept in a closed system. Sure my power bill would go up but it would be better then paying a stupid carbon tax designed to fleece the masses or paying for a technology to replace coal which would only last 30 odd years and leave us and our descendants with a great big mess to clean up. Obviously we would need to use other renewable sources like wind, geothermal, hydro and wave technology but it is time we stopped looking for temporary solutions and just go the whole hog. We know where we need to be so lets get on with it.

Mark

[Peter Ward]

No argument from me Bert.

I'm rather a fan of James Lovelock (Revenge of Gaia) who notes that in the low level waste ponds outside many (nuke power ) facilities, life in fact flourishes.

Apparently the birds/bugs/bees can't read the "danger radioactive" signs
and literally thrive.....as humanity leaves them alone in there.

Now this really surprised me!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

That said, high level waste...even just a fridge full...is a problem, but hardly insurmounatble, particularly in a very large, geologically stable continent like Australia.

[renormalised]

Nothing new to me, but then again I am geologist. It's something I've studied. Coal contains quite a bit of disseminated radioactive minerals as do the rocks it comes from. Most sediments carry uranium and thorium (especially thorium). Another thing...all those "black" sands we have in Oz...full of rutile. Also full of thorium.

[mswhin63]

I saw that episode as well and was suitably impressed, although I don't completely agree with Nuclear, the Solar concept mention in the program was still quite some time away from full development. It would not provide as much power as the PV panels currently available.

If need action we need to find the fastest actionable solution. Gas only has a 30% reduction, so nuclear seems to be the best and should only best used to replace the existing coal stations first. In the meantime i could see better use for government funds to help the solar research and maybe by the time 3 or 4 power station are complete we may see th end of Nuclear, or maybe Fusion reactors would be developed as mentioned in the program "How to make a Sun on Earth".

For those that really need action on climate change Nuclear is the fastest and so far the best.

[glenc]

I agree with Bert on solar but we might need something else at night or when there is a long spell of cloudy days.
Geothermal or wind or wave could be used at night. Solar thermal could probably last a night in summer using molten salt.
Here is a suggested action plan for Australia. http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/01/29/a-sketch-plan-for-a-zero-carbon-australia/

[marki]

Malcom I am against anything to do with destroying resources that cannot be retrieved. The burning of coal, LPG and crude for energy is criminal in my view. From the perspective of chemistry there are so many essential compounds that we simply cannot make in a lab that will be lost when these fuels are exhausted. The only other viable source is trees, what next a new global easter island? We only have small reserves of uranium and I will bet as soon as we use that up another essential requirement will be found which we will not be able to do due to lack of resources. The sun has powered this planet for millions of years, when will we the "wise ones" work that out. The technology is here now though expensive as it may be. What will be the cost of going on our merry way? I do not believe fusion will ever be a viable source of energy on Earth but why bother? we have a great big burning star thats doing all the work for us. Note that the OPEC nations who consider themselves as the worlds energy suppliers are planning on continuing to do so when the oil runs out. What are they investing in, nuclear technologies? No solar is where their money is going.

Mark

[renormalised]

Here's a little video I came across on YouTube that I think you might find interesting...Quasicrystal batteries (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcCLIwlbhLc&feature=related)

And here's some more info...Quasicrystals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasicrystal)

Here's an article talking about the applications of quasicrystals in communications technology... New Method for Trapping Light (http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/05/1024/6a.shtml)

[jjjnettie]

Not everyone has this built in protection.:( This chromosome pair is absent in some people, a condition called "Lynch Syndrome". What causes these silent mutations to occur?????

[marki]

JJJ there are a large number of mechanisms for mutation in DNA ( just living will do it) and they occur on a daily basis mainly in the non-coding areas of the strands. It only really becomes a problem when active regions are mutated causing all sorts of malfunctions to occur depending on what exactly gets changed. Our DNA contains repair mechanisms called SOS genes that work to repair any mutation which occurs. It is also possible to have only one of the repair sites active with the other being mutated and people with this mutation are more prone to cancer. Mutated DNA is passed on from generation to generation and if you are unlucky enough to have hetrozygous parents and inherit two faulty pairs you are in real trouble.

Mark

[renormalised]

I agree there, Mark. There are far more important uses for the crude oil and LPG than burning the stuff. However, solar power, as it is at present, is not our definitive answer. I've said it previously, it is not an efficient enough technology to be considered to be used as a base load energy supply source. It's greatest asset, sunlight, is also its greatest liability. Plus, we don't have sufficiently advance energy storage technologies yet, to be able to store what energy we do capture. Even the best of the sun based technologies is only 25% (at the very most 30%) efficient in capturing and even less for storing the energy gathered. You only have to look at the power requirements for a city the size of Sydney or Melbourne to see how impractical, at present, this type of energy generation is. Especially where using the present methodologies for generating and distributing power are concerned.

What we ultimately need is a solar PV cell which can harness 75-90% of the light impinging upon the cells and a far more efficient (and safe) storage technology than what we have at present. A typical house would use around 20Kw of energy to run all the electrical systems within it. Each square metre of the Earth's surface has 1370W per square metre of solar insolation. That means 14.6 square metres of surface area intercepts 20Kw of energy. At 75% efficiency, it means you'll need about 20 square metres to intercept that amount of energy. The roof of your average home could easily accommodate a PV panel of that size. Now, if we can achieve this sort of efficiency and also develop the batteries to store it, then we will be getting somewhere. The really big thing about this is that we don't have to rely on centralised energy generating utilities if we can do this. No need for greedy energy corporations, except for the industrial sector, possibly.

Using our present technologies (including those solar furnace power stations), you would need impractically large areas set aside for energy generation of a magnitude large enough to act as a main supply.

And...what are the environmentalists going to say about it all, when you're mining all that silica sand and such to make all the mirrors, etc, for these plants?? If they find anything they disagree about, they whine. Next minute, they'll be complaining the solar plant takes up too much space, or you've had to mine 100KT of pure sand (or whatever else you might use) to make the mirrors. You're disturbing the habitat of the Itchy-goo bird!!!. Or the endangered pink spotted sabretooth hopping mouse!!!!.

You can see now, this is more complicated than it looks. Some things might look good on paper and in small to medium scale trials, but it's the really big picture that we have to consider. That's where things don't look so rosy and where we have to spend our research money to get things going.

[marki]

Carl using current technologies it has been calculated that 50 square km of panels with fuel cells utilising either water or methane would produce enough energy to supply the needs of australia for some time into the future. If we start now future improvements in technology can be implimented as they become available. Sounds like a lot of money yes? Consider that the WA gov is thinking of spending billions on developing our river front to the city or the billion the pollies are going to throw at sport. At least we will have a nice view and be fit as we choke to death on our own pollution. We need to make a start now, hanging around waiting for someone to develop the silver bullet will only lead to more apathy and nothing will get done. Copenhagen has been a fine example of that. We need to make a firm committment for change and set a path for the engineers to move in. Sure lots of problems to solve but not impossible by any means.

Mark

[renormalised]

See what I mean...50 square km of panels and unless it's a closed cycle system, a producer of a lot of GHG. At what percentage of energy capture are they calculating these energy generating capacities?? And how do they propose to store all this energy??. The Greenies will find any excuse to protest against it. Plus, how long do you think it would take to make enough panels to cover the area, then set up all the ancillary infrastructure for this type of powerplant, of that size?? What will the cost be??

Well, it's easy enough to fix the pollies and change their policies. All it takes is a bit of backbone and some organisation. They're supposed to be our representatives, so at our behest. Not the other way around (like it invariably seems to be).

[marki]

Carl I have a mate who lives up at York. He has setup his house so it runs on solar cells and batteries. The design of the house is such that energy requirements are minimal and he and his family are very comfortable. He has a small generator which he fires up when needed to recharge the batteries but this is a very rare occassion. The fuel cells used would have to be closed system or it would defeat the purpose of it all. Stored gas does not have to be under high pressure for the fuel cell to work. How do you compare the cost of building something big to the cost of the future of our species and planet? I never said it would be cheap but it is possible. The Govt has already made a start by funding people to put solar cells on our roofs (I know I have them). Now we need to go that next step.

Mark

[Kal]

To think one single dam in china produces up to 1/3rd of Australia's total electricity consumption.

Three Gorges Dam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam) 22500 MWH capacity when completed in 2011, output for last 3 years - 61.6 TWH, 80.8 TWH, 60.7 TWH (partial for 2009)

Australias electricity consumption (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=electricity+consumption+australi a) 220 TWH (2006 est.)

Granted we don't have a river like the Yangtze, but when you combine solar with hydro electric (this (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/green-energy-boost-as-hydro-plant-opens-20091120-iq4x.html) new plant opened in Victoria this year), with wind and other renewable energy sources, we certainly have the capability to phase away from coal while not turning to nuclear either.

[renormalised]

Very commendable efforts. But like I said before, most people will want to keep their present lifestyles in so far as energy usage goes. That's just a give fact. If we can implement some of these technologies, then great. Do it. But if we want to see costs come down and efficiency to rise, we're going to have to look at other ways of doing things. No matter how laudable or necessary a thing might be, if it's going to cost too much in the long run, most people won't have a bar of it, eventually. I'm afraid it'll take a lot longer to change human nature than it will to build these powerplants. They will only ever be a stopgap measure (even if that means 50 years of use, or more).

That's why we need the money to do the research necessary to come up with these technologies. In the meantime, we have to make do with what we can do. But we're going to have to pull our heads in when we do.

[Kal]

Carl - if things like the ETS force energy costs up then many people will certainly consider changing their lifestyle. In NSW energy costs are already soaring. You saw it when petrol prices rose - large car sales hurt, small car sales boomed.

[marki]

I wonder how the mob would react to a choice between a carbon tax designed to fleece the masses without impacting the large CO2 producers and getting wasted on flying Krudd and friends to world climate conventions or a levy to start changing over to renewable power sources? Sadly that is not an option we are being given.

Mark

[renormalised]

They also don't have the rabid greenies we do. Another dam, or series of dams would go down like a lead balloon.

In any case, the Three Gorges Dam is unsafe, both from an environmental and engineering PoV. It sits on about half a dozen major faults in the middle of an earthquake prone zone. It's an earth fill dam by construction. The weight of the water in the dam is sufficient enough alone to generate an earthquake. The Chinese government were warned not to build it by their own geologists and engineers, but they were ignored. This dam was built purely on political grounds...that it helps to mitigate flooding is just a secondary concern, an added benefit. If this dam cracks for any reason and the wall collapses, it'll kill 100 million people or more.

[supernova1965]

Its not just what we do in our homes we have large buildings leaving every light in the place on all night every night 24/7 365 days a year every year. Our local council has just started installing these new street lights in areas where the roads are being upgraded imagine if every street light were converted to these. I am sure that there are more things that can be done we just have to think outside the box

[renormalised]

Building one of these powerplants to the size mentioned will force up energy costs...dramatically. People will only change so much before they start to complain, in some cases rather bitterly. Push people too far and see what happens.

[renormalised]

I never said I agree with a carbon tax, like the one proposed. But the thing is, as it stands, the mob is caught between a rock and a hard place. Either pay this tax to salve the minds and pockets of the big corporations, or, pay to have the technology installed to generate clean(ish) power and pay through the nose for it. In any case, you know who will benefit from this the most...the big corporations. Big energy especially. Their government flunkies will also benefit from the crumbs they happen to give them as well. It's like I said, people will only put up with this sort of affair for so long, unless they're apathetic and stupid.

What would you do, or more to the point, what do you think most people would do if their power bill went up by 50%, or 100, 200, 300%, in order to pay for all of this?? Regardless of its environmental credentials or how kind it was to nature, they'd riot. Because it wouldn't only be the power bill that went up. There are only two ways to really lower the costs of energy generation in this scenario...1) Subsidisation of the power supply (which isn't going to happen) and/or 2) Economies of scale...and the only way to achieve that is by individual, self contained power generation, not by massive national utilities. The only reason power is (relatively) cheap at present is the economies of scale w.r.t. coal mining and transportation. It's the reason why coals mines are so huge, why the trains are miles long and the price is relatively cheap. If it wasn't like this, then you'd be paying through the nose for power right now.

The reason why Copenhagen, like all the other conferences, was a dud is because of this. Money = power and neither the big corporations or the governments are willing to change their ways because of what it will mean to them. It's the reason why all their talk about clean energy and such gets nowhere in the long run. In a cruel twist (for them), they are at the behest of the people. Not because of the people's insistence that they change, but because of what will happen if they change or have to change quickly. People don't like change, people like to be comfortable and let someone else have to do all the dirty work. If we're going to get out of all of this, then it will have to be a change in the very fabric of the society that is going to have to happen, not a cosmetic change of changing your methods of power generation. If society doesn't change its fundamentals, then we will repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

You can only do that so many times before the system ultimately fails.

[renormalised]

That's a good start. But more needs to be done...are we willing to do more?

[glenc]

With the proposed Rudd ETS (CPRS) the electricity generators will get free pollution permits, then pretend they never got them, and charge us all extra for electricity anyway.

[marki]

I imagine they would just do this, the clever ones anyway.

http://www.affordable-solar.com/large-solar-power-system-off-grid-6560-watt.htm

I mean with the current prices of houses it would not add that much more to the cost would it. Carl they have just hiked gas prices up here by 50% and there has yet to be a revolution.

Mark

[TrevorW]

As long as it's affordable we will pay for it no matter the cost

however the rise must be gradual over time (so it's hidden) otherwise no doubt we would see power consumption go down which would be intolerable is as far it would affect the producers income

it's all relevant

[mswhin63]

Exactly right, I know that if I was to build house I would invest in a solar solution, currently I rent so out of the question. The only bit I can do is building a solar charger for my astro battery system. Other system in the house can't be done because the owner won't allow it.

[mswhin63]

BTW I believe the solar production has a high greenhouse effect but that part i am sure about. It may be offset over time though, how long not sure though.

[Solanum]

The various DNA repair systems aren't perfect, they will inherently vary between people and in effect some wear out, it's untrue to assume you can take a certain amount of radiation (and presumably then all will go wrong?). It's all about probability and risk. The probability of a single high energy particle causing you lasting damage is very small, but it is there. Likewise, some people smoke heavily until a very old age and don't get cancer, doesn't make it a sensible thing to do though. Given enough data we can assess those risks and say perhaps (note this isn't a real risk estimate!) "only one in a million people living within 10 miles of a nuclear plant is likely to get cancer as a result" that assessment cannot tell us who that person would be though and as a risk it would probably be acceptable to most (far more likely to die in a car accident driving home from work). One problem is the lower the risk the more data we need to identify it.

By the way, I doubt a foetus with a chromosome pair missing would be viable. Lynch syndrome is more likely to be a single gene that is defective.

[renormalised]

Honestly Mark, how many can afford to shell out nearly $35K just for the sake of putting some PVC's on the roof?? It's not that it will add too much to the cost of a house, it's the initial cost burden to begin with. If it was that affordable or relatively cheap, everyone would have one. For new houses, I think they should be a mandatory inclusion, much like the plumbing. But you can't expect people to go out and just part with what for many is a year's (or more) wages just so they can feel better about their environmental impact. They simply won't do it. You have to make this sort of thing a lot cheaper before people will ultimately commit to making the leap. Especially when they're going to be installed in existing homes.

What price do you pay for gas??

[supernova1965]

I know 3 people in my immediate group of friends that have done just that and are glad they have done it.:thumbsup:

[renormalised]

Good on them, but that still doesn't mean the majority of people will. Most people can't afford it...simple as that. In any case, most people would probably buy a car before they bought a panel (or panels) of PVC's.

[GrahamL]

The uranium industry from what I've read over the years mirrors a lot of other buisness models , profit first people second , and in THIS industry like no other the long term legacy is well outside any accountability for individual companies .

What would the girls have to say ?
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/05/radium-girls/

[jjjnettie]

I've heard the story of the Radium Girls.
Unbelievably shocking treatment.

[bojan]

Yes.. shocking. Because people will almost always put short-time profit before everything else... Someone on that blog mentioned asbestos - same story, just different stuff.

As far as nuclear power is concerned, I have no problems with that.
I lived for almost 10 years very close to one (50km or so) , the only effect we saw was a slightly risen temperature of the river ( water from river was used for cooling).
This plant is still operating, almost 30 years so far, and only once there was a small accident involving leakage of water from primary circuit (but no radiation). Actually, the real scare for us was Chernobyl incident, and it was thousands of km away..
This technology (not the one used in Chernobyl) is very mature and safe.. it also creates jobs (highly skilled, though) and it is cheap in the long run.
Australia has enormous deposits of uranium.. and a lots of deserts that could be used to store waste, and even employ locals, after proper training.. I am sure this will happen sooner or later.

[Peter Ward]

The treatment of these women was indeed criminal. Thalidomide - involving no radiation at all- was equally so, some decades later.

But for heavens sake, things have move on a bit since then.

The (radium) author's argument is akin to the reverse of " eating Nutrigrain is good as it is full of iron and will help develop our Northwest, and so help our economy"

The popular mindset of: nuclear power = cancer + bombs
....is really very dumb.

As has been mentioned earlier, the low level emissions for coal fired plants
is *higher* than the nuclear variety.

In a well regulated environment, the technology is incredibly safe, zero deaths in the French operations in over 40 years....and still we on planet Oz baulk.

Our motto " Shippers of yellow-cake to the world" ! :shrug:

[GrahamL]

No argument there Pete :)

But theres so many unknowns in this industry that are only just starting to become relevent with the operating life of many of these reactors coming to an end .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning



In that is what I see as the worry , sure nuclear power plants are safe enough , but down the road ?.. when the money isn't there ?

[Peter Ward]

4th generations plants are apparently good for 40-60 years.

Setting up a "decomissioning fund" as part of the operators licence would seem a reasonable solution.

Taking the mean figure, and say a $1billion decomissioning cost... I'm guessing..a ball park figure...20 million a year would be all that is required?

I think the janatorial bill at Parliment house is not far off that :)

(I seem to recall it being about 1 million...but that could be way off)

[marki]

Carl I posted that in repect to your comment of huge rises in power costs. If power went up by 500% it would certainly be worth considering. Houses around here have increased in value by 25K in the last 3 months so I am assuming 35K extra on a loan is not going to break the bank. I will let you know what the extra gas cost is when the bill arrives. Considering we produce so much of it in this state you would assume it would be cheap but that only goes for overseas buyers I am affraid.

Mark

[AG Hybrid]

$35K, thats alot of money for something that will pay itself off in how many years? 15-20?

$35K ontop of the cost of a house on the west coast may not seem so much. But on the east coast? $35,000 is what it is. $35,000!! Thats family saloon money, or a 4WD or a huge swimming pool (yes luxury items), even a private observatory. It could be the difference between being able to afford a house with 4 bed rooms instead of 3.

Also, alot of people on the east coast are scraping by just to pay their current mortgage. They get by month after month with out any savings at all! 35K can and probably will break the bank. With interest rates rising now, that money will be spent else where. Of course in most cases, they have only themselves to blame for putting themselves into so much debt. That being said, the majority of Australias population lives on the east coast.

Ideally yes its great. My father is planning to purchase a smaller one purely for running the refridgerator when he retires in 6 months. Its fine for him he can dip into his super.

As mentioned previously by renormalised, I think the best way around it is to have the house built with it manditory, so when the buyer purchases the house, it is included in the price without a further or added burden. Either they can afford the whole package or they cant.

[mswhin63]

The price of gas follows OPEC oil pricing condition, so unfortunately it goes up and down with oil prices. Ever look at the petrol station and wonder why gas prices fluctuate.

I know this because I made a complaint with ACCC, and they were the ones that told me about gas pricing structure, as well as there was nothing I could do.

[mswhin63]

$35,000 solar system are for the high end houses that would consume a lot of electricity. General house power consumption would not be as much.

[renormalised]

I agree with you there...if the price for power went up that high it would be worth considering. Wouldn't even have to go that high. Like I said, I think the installation of PVC's on new houses should be made mandatory and included in the price of the house. But for most people, shelling out $35K just to put them on an existing building would be considered an expense they couldn't afford. That's why the prices need to come down.

Oh, that's nothing new....governments making us paying more for the damn stuff than overseas customers, yet we produce it in bucket loads!!!. Rather curry favour with the neighbours than look after their own.

[renormalised]

Geez, is it that cheap!!!:eyepop::P:D

Might buys meself a bit of real estate...hmmmm, too many choices:P:D

Might buy Mars:D

[FredSnerd]

Ahh the circle of life



Followed by a devastating accident; CEOs scapegoating and declaring this latest catastrophe “a one in a billion freak accident”;

Followed by kangaroo court investigations, hearings, reports and fake soul searching

Followed by some impressionable bright spark who says I know!!! Lets build a nuclear reactor. The latest upteen generation nuclear reactor is “FAILSAFE”!!!!

Followed by responses like these from industry apologists in defence of past mishaps, misdeeds and deceits


And round and round we go.

And you gots ta love the latest mantra. Straight out of industry lobbyist’s folder. "France has been operating for 40 years with NO accidents". Yeah well that’s France. What about the US. Oh sorry, that’s right, they’ve had accidents (pretty bad ones). What about the UK. Oh sorry, that’s right, they’ve had accidents (pretty bad ones). What about Russia. Oh sorry, that’s right, they’ve had accidents (pretty bad ones). Why only mention France? Because all the others have had accidents.

You know what you can do with that motto " Shippers of yellow-death to the world"

[Peter Ward]

There are so many holes in such tired old arguments.

Suffice to say, profit is not the only motive (lord knows, airlines would not exist) for providing an essential service.

Why would you not take lessons from Soviet or USA blunders?

There was a well structured piece on the ABC science show recently

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1615070.htm

Oz could have been very well poised to take advantage of these emerging
technologies.

Instead of investing long term into a zero emission, power technology, the government of the day said "here have, 900 bucks and buy a something trivial, preferably made in China" :shrug:

Sadly, as our ABC correspondent notes, for many
the word “nuclear” is about as popular as the word “paedophilia”.

[Kal]

And yet politics aside the simple fact, which you can't deny, is that energy costs will rise in the future.

Once again I will refer to the car fuel scenario as an example of what will happen. Ethanol only becomes a viable option to use as a renewable fuel once the price of oil goes past a certain point, and it becomes cheaper to make car fuel out of sugar. The same goes for diesel. This price point for fuel changes because once the demand is shifted back to grown fuel it forces the demand & hence price up, but the simple fact is that over time demand has grown for plant based fuel as oil prices have risen.

The same will happen with the fuels for electricity production. Slowly over time, prices will rise, partially driven by outcomes of meetings like Kyoto and Copenhagen and the like, and there will be a shift where alternate means of green electricity production become "less expensive" when compared to coal based production. It is an undeniable fact.

[AstralTraveller]

One thing we can do now which will make a difference is to mandate the use of solar hot water. It is simple, proven technology which works. Unlike solar electricity, storing the energy received during the day for use at night requires nothing more than some insulation. My very old second rate system needs a bit of boosting in winter but from spring to autumn the booster is turned off. Given Australia's favourable climate (and global warming :D) I can't see why every house, office block and much of industry can't use solar hot water. To me it's a no-brainer.

[jjjnettie]

And nearly every house/shed has a whirly bird on the roof which could generate enough electricity to power a few lights.
I know it's only a small drop, but if everyone did it......

[renormalised]

What does that say about France's nuclear industry as compared to the others. Who should we all try to emulate and learn off.

[multiweb]

Well it's very tightly regulated. I've been inside a couple of plants and you could eat off the floor. I mean they wash the tyres of the vehicles coming in and out of the area and they also make you take your shoes off when you go in and out of any building. You wear special slippers. That goes for everybody even tradies. Every welding done on any pipe is X-rayed 4 or 5 times for each pass and is knocked back if anything is wrong. They have zero tolerance for everything. Seems to work so far and nobody minds.

[jjjnettie]

I've only visited one nuclear power plant, in 1994, at Trawsfynydd, Wales.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4379790.stm
Very interesting story about dissembling the plant.
It was still in use when we were there.
As Marc said, they are very clean. The visitors galleries were fully enclosed.
There was a lake onsite, I don't know if it was the cooling dam, but you could buy a license and go fishing in it.
I had visions of Barts 3 eyed fish.
Still have the coffee cup I bought from the visitors centre.

[renormalised]

What do you think is going to happen to the prices of these "green" fuels and generating methods once they become more viable. Their prices will go up...just like everything else. You will be charged not what "the market" considers to be the price, but what the producers decide to cost them at...just like what happens with oil, now. They'll just have another version of OPEC running the show, telling everyone what they will have to pay for their convenience.

In so far as biofuels is concerned, given the rapacity for more and more fuel, are they going to just grow crops for fuel or are they going to remember that we all need to eat. There are concerns now amongst nations that nations like the US, China and blocks like Europe will end up exploiting poorer nations because they'll put most of their agricultural production into growing biofuels, and expect the others to grow food. In order to feed an ever demanding growth for fuel, they'll have to put under crop more and more arable land, at the expense of food crops.

Where do you stop??

You don't seem to see, Andrew, that so called "alternative" methods will not become cheaper, unless people force governments and manufacturers to make them such. It's not only demand and supply which matters. You can demand it and they supply it, but they'll set their own prices for its providence. Economies of scale should, by rights, reduce the costs of manufacturing and supply, however, it will have to be by legislation that prices are controlled otherwise manufacturers will charge whatever they please and you will have to pay for it. You can cost cut in manufacturing and discount at sale as much as you like, up to a point, before it becomes uneconomical for yourself as a manufacturer to make and sell your goods. Those "alternative" methods will only become as cheap as the manufacturers allow them to. They will set the prices according to the prevailing costs of providing energy, or just below in order to attract customers. So, unless governments end up heavily subsidising energy production and distribution, it is still going to be an expensive exercise moving towards "alternative" methods.

Although, we may not have any choice in the matter.

[renormalised]

Yes and I totally agree. Like PVC's, it should be mandatory on new housing and those wishing to install it on their existing houses should keep on receiving the rebate.

Or, if you're handy enough, why not make your own:D

[multiweb]

I'm not surprised. Next to Dieppe on the Channel (which is very cold water) there is one of those Super Phoenix plants. They use sea water to cool down the secondary circuits and the water on the in/outlets is so warm that schools of mussels grew and other marine echo system developed. The fisheries around the area love it and you'll get the best seafood in the area. They also are starting to "pair" nuclear plants with leisure/aquatic centers in south of France. My dad told me that they have numerous "waterworlds", slides, waves generation machines, powered by the plants near by.... oh, and free hot water too ;)

So..see... it's all not that bad. :thumbsup:

[renormalised]

That's precisely how it should be, Marc. I wonder how the standards from the other countries compare and are they as diligent in their keeping of those standards as they are in France.

[JimmyH155]

Way back in 1984, we bought a fairly run down farm near Gympie. There was only tank water discharging by gravity into the sink. I decided that was primitive and we had a Solarhart water heater fitted on the roof, complete with a little pressure pump (took a day to install) . This was the first installation around for about 60 klm. Boy did that water get hot!!:D:D Frequently it would boil in the roof. On one occasion it was overcast for 4 days, and even after that time, (family of 5) the water was still tepid. :P
I totally agree with you guys comments and would go further and say that ALL new houses without exception should be legislated to have hot water panels on their roofs - and thats all over Australia, even Tassie.
What government is man enough to implement that??
none.....:mad2:

[jjjnettie]

But if you read that article I posted the link to, the drama really starts when you decommission the plant.
How long is the working life of a nuclear power plant?????

[Kal]

I already covered this in my original post.

Simple fact is that it has already happened, is happening right now, and will continue to happen in the future.

[TrevorW]

I did these sums too and came to the same conclusion refer link

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8569

At the time the $8000 subsidy was being offerred I emailed the PM (official site) and suggested that the net cost to the householder should be reduced to about $1000 and the subsidy increased (I also suggested a minimal system of 2.5 kw per installation was more practical)

I went on too quote stat's etc

Do you think I got a response, no way

This Govt struts around promising they will do something proactive but only if they can get the money out of honest joe citizen to pay for it

[renormalised]

I agree with you...the demand will go up as oil prices rises, but so will the price of those plant based fuels, especially when oil based fuels become harder to come by.

[glenc]

JJJ said "the drama really starts when you decommission the plant"
With 4th generation nuclear plants there is a lot less waste and the half life is much shorter.
They will actually use up most of the current waste and there will be no need to mine Uranium for ages.

"The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) concept was developed at the Argonne National Laboratory and it has been built and tested at the Idaho National Laboratory. IFR keeps neutrons “fast” by using liquid sodium metal as a coolant instead of water. It also makes fuel processing easier by using a metallic solid fuel form. IFR can burn existing nuclear waste, making electrical power in the process. All fuel reprocessing is done within the reactor facility (hence the name “integral”) and many enhanced safety features are included and have been tested, such as the ability to shutdown safely under even severe accident scenarios."
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/28/hansen-to-obama-pt-iii-fast-nuclear-reactors-are-integral/

[mswhin63]

It is a no brainer, but there are still businesses that don't sell Solar Systems. They would be shouting foul if the government regulated that. It is still cheaper to install a gas system. As home are becoming mor difficult to sell home maker are opting for cheaper systems than effecient then charge like a wounded bull if you upgrade to solar.

[renormalised]

What a pity, I was looking forward to buying Mars:P:D

[AstralTraveller]

Let them shout. On this forum both proponents and deniers of AGW agree that we need to burn less fossil fuel and be more energy efficient. If they want to make houses cheaper then cut back on luxury items (eg the third en suite) not on necessary improvements.

BTW a workmate said yesterday that him and his wife were discussing Copenhagen and energy usage when it dawned on them that they are two people living in a 6 bedroom house with a 'ginormous' air con ..... :question: I thought I finally heard the sound of pennies dropping. :rolleyes:

[AstralTraveller]

Sold!!! to the man with the g-pick!! Once the cheque for $35k has cleared I forward the title deeds. :thanx: