nuclear energy!!! whats it worth to us?

[wraithe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Desalination
http://www.solar-desalination.com/
water, hmm....

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by norm

Mick's right, its a red herring, but for other reasons too.

No it's not a red herring to divide the ALP. Some in the ALP have admitted to me that the Uranium debate was lost with the 1977 election. It is a genuine debate on the future of uranium mining, reprocessing and the building of nuclear power plants in this country. The latest generation plants are quite capable of replacing coal fired, and would be very useful in those parts of Australia which do not have extensive coal reserves.

The SMH has been running some articles on this over the last few days. The latest is here:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...524888448.html

[Argonavis (William)]

and here is another item from The Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-30417,00.html

nuclear power stations - it seems that everyone wants one

[Argonavis (William)]

except Greenpeace:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=41963

[norm]

I'm not at odds with having a debate over nuclear energy, its definitely needed. What I was saying is that it will definitely will be at odds with some labour party members, the most obvious is Peter Garrett.

On another note, reading the article in the SMH:

This week Silex, which has no government funding, signed a deal giving General Electric the rights to commercialise the technology. The first laser-enrichment plant will be built in the US, but others could follow in Australia.

This is exactly the thing that just makes me SO annoyed with our government. No funding/backing or assistance in emerging technologies. Above is a prime example of something great/prosperous going offshore to a mega mammouth company.

[acropolite (Phil)]

Originally Posted by Kearn

wind, solar - just patchy unreliable bandaid technology, dreamy fiddling at the edges stuff.

Not correct Kearn, wind power is alive and doing very well in Tasmania and has been for years. Solar is viable, I have a shack that has been powered by solar for over 15 years. The power system is very modest, and so are my power requirements. When the weather is less favourable, I adjust my usage to suit. Building nuclear power stations is the ultimate bandaid, albeit a very toxic one, so is burning coal, as others have stated it will all be gone in a few years. Given that the current debate is fuelled by a report prepared the Nuclear industry it's not surprising that it's being pushed, especially given our current government's "favourable" handling of some parts of the energy sector (e.g. ethanol), to the detriment of others. You can also bet that if these accidents waiting to happen (nuclear power stations) are ever built that the mining and export of coal will continue, where's the sense in that? It's time that Joe Average started to question the actions of our pollies and the motivation behind them and take steps to efficiently use what we already have and not sell our children’s future for a few bucks for corporate interests and a short time solution to the energy crunch that is inevitable. As a race we need to examine the way we live, the damage we do and the unsustainable growth model all our economies rely on.
If you want to see the ultimate result when governments pander to industry come to Northern Tasmania and experience the (year round) filthiest air in the country courtesy of forestry interests, many tourists are writing to the media and refusing to return because of the constant air pollution. Consider this... Despite being designed and manuactured for decades, they still haven't been able to build a foolproof aeroplane (or anything else for that matter), what makes you think they can design and build a foolproof reactor.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by acropolite

Consider this... Despite being designed and manuactured for decades, they still haven't been able to build a foolproof aeroplane (or anything else for that matter), what makes you think they can design and build a foolproof reactor.

acro - there is so much in this spray that I don't know where to start - but no technology is risk free and never will be. Life is not risk free, and our society has made massive strides in limiting energy use compared to the 1970's. The graph is not going off the scale because technological progress makes things cheaper and more efficient each new generation, which for technology is only about 5 years. I am pleased that you like to live low tech, but I don't think that will suffice for most of the world's population.

Why is there so much pollution in northern tassie? Forestry is pretty clean.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by norm

This is exactly the thing that just makes me SO annoyed with our government. No funding/backing or assistance in emerging technologies. Above is a prime example of something great/prosperous going offshore to a mega mammouth company.

Norm - the government is a total failure in picking winners. For every technology that succeeds in the market place there are dozens that fail. I don't think taxpayers would be happy to see their money wasted.

Remember the steam car being developed in Australia? How much money did the government put up? It was over $500,000 at least. How many steam cars do you see in the streets?

Governments are very profiligate with other people's money.

[acropolite (Phil)]

Originally Posted by argonavis

Why is there so much pollution in northern tassie? Forestry is pretty clean

There is so much pollution because there is burnoff activity, over the past year almost constantly. When you have a high level of plantation forestry you have a high level of regeneration burning (Forestry burnoff is exempt from all appropriate environmental laws). Add to that the fact that they lay poison baits in the areas to kill off the native wildlife and aerial spray with chemicals (some of which have been banned in other countries). These chemicals have been sprayed on adjacent properties and run off in to our waterways. Growing plantations also reduce waterflow to rivers and streams. Four Corners did an excellent program on forestry in Tasmania, not that it helped, things are worse now than ever.

[fringe_dweller]

Originally Posted by acropolite

Not correct Kearn, wind power is alive and doing very well in Tasmania and has been for years.

I don't think you read my words very carefully Phil, I said it might be viable in cold places like tassie and scandinavia were the turbines dont burnout if the weather gets too hot like it does here (over 35C), and they have to shut them down to avoid this happening. If thats not classed as patchy and unreliable I dont know what is?
We in SA apparently have 51% of australia's total windpower - and I think we have the highest electricity costs in the nation oddly? and we have to import a lot of out power from other states.
Anyway glad to see that bass strait power line from tassie plugged into the national grid recently thanks very much tassie!
Funny i wonder how much greehouse emissions were created making those enviroment destroying hydro-electricity dams? I actually toured one of them when i lived there as a kid, down the tunnel and saw the turbines (do they need replacing occasionally? might produce some greenhouse gasses?)
Glad we didnt have this attitude in the 50's!, the snowy ect. would NEVER of been built, australia would of been stuffed by this nanny state crap.
Actually does CO2 emissions during construction ect. get factored into all those pretty sky scrapers and public works in the eastern capital cities - and would they then be veteod coz of this? how much pollution is created when you build a coal/gas fired station/wind or solar farm/ - does anyone care? funny only care when it is created when you build a nuke plant!
How do you heat that shack on those cold nights Phil - solar power?
and re coal/gas power being cheapest - they wont be for much longer once they start adding pollution taxes to them and enforcing expensive emission controls onto the power stations and thats not far off now.

[acropolite (Phil)]

Some good points there Kearn, I do heat my shack with LPG, although it's rarely required in the summer months. As for Hydro, it's mostly good news, except for the enormous debt incurred in building the schemes. What I'm really saying is that I don't believe that our current social and economic system is viable in to the future. We're living on borrowed time, using up resources at an alarming rate, nuclear power comes at a cost to present and future generations. Ask anyone whether they want a nuclear power plant built in their neighbourhood and you'll usually find the answer is no, even the pollies squirm when they're asked. Nuclear accidents aren't confined to state or even country boundaries. There has been an increased incidence of childhood cancers in Great Britain, a consequence of the Chernobyl accident. A nuclear faclility in central Australia could, in the event of an accident, spew radiation in to South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania, with the population of those states having no control over the spread of radiation. At the end of the day the nuclear plant will have limited life, then we are back to the same old question where is the energy coming from, renewables and efficient use of resources are the answer, surely it's better to take the hard decisions now rather than in the future.

[fringe_dweller]

No worries Phil , naturally I would like to see a simple and effective magic bullet(s) for looming energy crisis, like anyone would, but I am just trying to be pragmatic about it. When it comes to heating and cooling - the main volume use of domestic energy - I dont think the renewables are in the game yet.
how do we attract the people we need to this country when we expect them boil in their own juices and go troppo as a regular part of normal daily life in summer? a (like we ALL use too once - does anyone remember when a simple metal fan was for life and extremely expensive? as much comparitively as AC is now even probably ) I don't think that is attractive to a few? overseas people maybe?
Argo: I remember the steam cars too, in fact I think new versions of this idea making a comeback atm - good old current affairs/news tv shows filler/fluff

[gaa_ian (Ian)]

There is a lot of depth in this debate to be sure!
There is so much we can do to conserve energy ! do we build energy efficient houses? Generally not! why ? It takes a bit of thought, a bit of foresight.
Build a brick box, A/C or heat it & all is good ????
The knowledge to do these things well has been around for a very long time, but our socity is a slave to fashion !
I think the poll on Apathy sums it up Q: what do you think about apathy A: I don't know & I don't care !
I think the statement made earlier about nuclear powerplants "it seems that everyone wants one" is perhaps a little overstated Argo.
Just wait to see how people will ***** and protest if someone says "OK we will build one in your suburb !

[wraithe]

South australia would be an ideal state to build a solar tower...Just up past Port Augusta and you would have nearly all year round sunshine...
a couple of 100 megawatt towers would make some diference to south australias power needs, and be environmentally safer too...
that area is ideal for this type of power supply and would be able to supply power for a water desalinator...I know what water is like in Port Pirie(I never would drink it), as my family are from there.. Now south aussie would be the most suitable to go solar..In western australia and the territory and queensland all have ideal places for solar towers and can be built within easy distance of major cities and towns...

http://www.enviromission.com.au/ this is a Victorian proposal so far...
and http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/ in NSW...
Thats just so far what i have found in the pipeline for australia, and these are both involving one private company...

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by acropolite

What I'm really saying is that I don't believe that our current social and economic system is viable in to the future. We're living on borrowed time, using up resources at an alarming rate, nuclear power comes at a cost to present and future generations.

So what "social and economic"system do you prefer? The Albanian economic model? All those happy Albanians enjoying the fruits of their collective labour?
Perhaps Phil's socialist state will be better? and what would that look like?

Originally Posted by acropolite

Ask anyone whether they want a nuclear power plant built in their neighbourhood and you'll usually find the answer is no, even the pollies squirm when they're asked.

No one seems to want anything in their backyard - whether it is a wind turbine or a coal fired or nuclear fired power station, or a dam. Perversely, everyone wants to be able to switch a light switch or turn a tap and get instant electricity and water.

Originally Posted by acropolite

Nuclear accidents aren't confined to state or even country boundaries. There has been an increased incidence of childhood cancers in Great Britain, a consequence of the Chernobyl accident.

cite your source

Originally Posted by acropolite

A nuclear faclility in central Australia could, in the event of an accident, spew radiation in to South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania, with the population of those states having no control over the spread of radiation.

Chernobyl was 20 years ago - and nuclear technology has moved on. Even at the time it was poorly engineered, no doubt due to a social and economic system that is not "current". Nuclear engineering is very safe. Which is why there is this public debate. An interesting item in a recent Occams Razor put the case for nuclear:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ock...s/s1048595.htm

No other technology has the same cost-benefit as nuclear, except coal. The sad truth is that photovoltaics, hydro and wind generation are expensive and unreliable, and tidal generation is only a concept.

sorry

[gaa_ian (Ian)]

That is one very impressive concept Wraite !
Has their been any proof of concept designs done & what is the cost/ MW of this type of power ?

[wraithe]

this is a quote from the bulletin:


There’s no doubt that it works – efficiently, reliably, and simply. In 1982, Professor Jörg Schlaich’s engineering consultancy, Schlaich Bergermann and Partner (SBP) based in Stuttgart, Germany, built a 200m tall, 50-kilowatt prototype solar thermal tower near Manzanares, south-eastern Spain. The then West German government was sufficiently intrigued by Schlaich’s concept to subsidise construction of the prototype on foreign soil. By coincidence, it was completed as the most intense El Niño event of the 20th century heralded the onset of a rapid warming phase in global climate that continues today.
The greenhouse gas emissions gen-erated in the building phase would be recouped within the first two-and-a-half years of operation, says Davey. Thereafter, it’s a free lunch: zero emissions, convertible to carbon credits in a global market.
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulle...ElemFormat=jpgThe Manzanares plant ran for seven years, with minimal tuning and maintenance, delivering electricity both night and day into the local power grid. Manzanares, in Spain’s La Mancha province, was selected because of its hot, dry climate but there was an unintended symbolism in the choice. Schlaich’s radical solar thermal system tilts not just at the great windmills sprouting from coastal landscapes in many developed nations, it throws down the gauntlet to conventional, coal-fired power stations.
Other solar thermal technologies focus the sun’s radiation with arrays of mirrors or sun-tracking, polished cylinders to vaporise water, and drive steam turbine generators. Their big drawback: they don’t run on moonshine. Schlaich’s solar tower generates energy 24 hours a day by exploiting three old principles: the chimney, greenhouse and windmill.
The “draw” that sustains an open-hearth fire exploits the temperature differential between the warm room and the cooler outside air, which is greatest on cold nights. Warm air rises, creating a convective flow. In the atmosphere, temperatures fall by 1°C per 100m of altitude, so the air at the top of a 1km-tall tower is about 10°C cooler than at the base. Schlaich’s design amplifies this differential by feeding heated air into the tower from a vast greenhouse “skirt” around its base.
The 5km-diameter greenhouse will be constructed of high-impact glass or polycarbonate supported on a metal frame. The Manzanares prototype experimented with both and suffered no damage in occasionally violent storms that delivered baseball-sized hailstones.
A convective airflow moving at 35km/h to 50km/h will spin the 32 wind turbines mounted about 40m above ground level, generating a peak output of 200MW.


here is the link to check it out yourselves...
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulle...2001BA833!open

[wraithe]

[OH the sceptics...This is quite normal for the knockers, so i have provided it here for anyone that has said its not feasible to use solar power...]


The concept excites engineers but Davey is realistic about the scepticism he will encounter in Australia. One senior executive in the wind-power sector recently dismissed the solar thermal tower as “just a chimney”, claiming it won’t work. Davey proffers a photograph of the Manzanares plant and says simply: “He should do his homework.”

[Yes it wont work here cause its not spain...lol...]

Already, a chill wind is swirling around the huge wind turbines that have sprung up on the Victorian coast. Last week, the Victorian chairman of the National Trust, Randall Bell, called for a moratorium on their construction until the state develops a master plan for the energy industry.
“We might go down this track and find it’s a no-through road and suddenly we find our landscape, and our coastline, littered with this sort of technology that we might all agree is a blight on our landscape. But we’ll be stuck with it for 50, maybe even 100 years,” Bell says.

[I like this comment, maybe those big nuclear power station chimneys look better than a solar tower...well i spose they do have a figure and not just straight up...]

At 500m apart, an array of 1MW wind turbines would need to be built more than two-deep along the 3000km length of Victoria’s coastline to replace Victoria’s current 7672MW generation capacity.
A 1km solar tower would be far more conspicuous but the corresponding “footprint” of 40-odd towers would be less than 800 sq km; about 28km on a side. And residents of the sparsely populated Millewa region around Neds Corner, with its flat vistas of wheat farms, limestone plains and low sand dunes, might welcome some vertical relief.

[i wonder, if my memory serves me right, these towers should create thermals...any glider pilots here, let me know if this is correct...these towers may create some large thermals that could be used by birds and gliders to do some nice flying....
Anyway back to reality, i havent found any costings for these but they do say that they will recover the costs to the environment for construction, within 2 1/2 years....]

[wraithe]

Damm i should have read a bit further...Here is a quote on costs from the bulletin.........



EnviroMission and SBP estimate the cost of their first 200-megawatt solar thermal tower at $670m, and say the cost of subsequent towers would fall. An engineering infrastructure, materials manufacturing plants and trained workforce would be in place and the design and construction would have been refined.
The initial cost is comparable with the $600m cost of building a new 200MW brown-coal power station and a drying plant for the coal, which is nearly 70% water by weight. A 200MW black-coal power station in Queensland would cost $440m. Davey says these prices ignore the unknown environmental and health costs of greenhouse gas, sulphur and particulate emissions from coal-fired power stations.
Each solar tower would abate between 920,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually from fossil fuels. Solar towers would help Victoria, which is heavily dependent on brown coal-sourced electricity, out of its bind in the Latrobe Valley.
The Bracks government has been criticised for its plan to create jobs by ramping up power production from the valley, where unemployment rates are among the highest in the nation. But burning more brown coal would compromise Australia’s obligation to reduce its greenhouse emissions under the Kyoto protocol, which requires it contain its emissions by 2010 to within an 8% increase of 1990 levels.
By 2010, Australia’s energy supply companies must purchase 10% of their electricity from renewable sources. The figure is now 8%, most of it from hydro-electric power. Emerging solar technologies are likely to provide much of the 2% increase.
Davey believes government support for the solar tower project would mollify both local and international critics of Australia’s greenhouse policies. After years of government neglect of the industry, he says, Australia must “stand up and be counted on its attitude towards renewable energy, especially solar energy”.

[Adrian-H]

the damage caused by fossel fules, makes regulated nuclear energy harmless.