That Electricity rip-off again

[Zhou (Mick)]

We should use uranium (or even better thorium) and ditch coal.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Zhou

We should use uranium (or even better thorium) and ditch coal.

I agree that thorium is a nice idea in principle, but at the end of the day it will only be a temporary solution.

Continuing to burn coal on the other hand will be an (ostensibly) permanent and unprecedented disaster.

[Zhou (Mick)]

The problem is this phobia against uranium, Australia has the largest reserves in the world of the stuff. Despite the drawbacks of nuclear power it is much better than burning dirty coal. The ideal, of course, are renewables but they will need time to develop particually in regards to baseload power supply.

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

Originally Posted by Zhou

The problem is this phobia against uranium, Australia has the largest reserves in the world of the stuff.

This is asking for trouble.

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by Zhou

The problem is this phobia against uranium, Australia has the largest reserves in the world of the stuff. Despite the drawbacks of nuclear power it is much better than burning dirty coal. The ideal, of course, are renewables but they will need time to develop particually in regards to baseload power supply.

Totally agree. Sell it overseas but will not use it here. Selling it is the same as using as far as I am concerned.

Power is going to go up forever now. Thankfully we have solar power.

[Zhou (Mick)]

"This is asking for trouble"

Back in the day I was was very anti nuclear power. The thing is we have a much bigger problem, anthropogenic global warming! We seriously have to look at all options.

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

I try really, really hard not to voice opinion on IIS. There is nothing sensible in nuclear energy.

I understand the baseload problems. But I will never support a power source that will condemn countless generations of MY children to the madness of looking after the waste. This includes the decommisioned reactors, contaminated power sites, ground water, etc. There is nothing smart about it. Medical and scientific applications is as far as I go.

I am in a situation with my business that EVERY aspect of what I produce involves power. Lots of it. Yet I cannot pass on these costs to my clients.

Nuclear will not see a reduction in power costs. Even if we did have nuclear from the year dot, the price hike would have still happened. Yet everyone still wants their big TVs, central heating, airconditioning, every type of power hungry gizzmo. Somethings got to give. Yes, we need options, but not madness.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Zhou

"This is asking for trouble"

Back in the day I was was very anti nuclear power. The thing is we have a much bigger problem, anthropogenic global warming! We seriously have to look at all options.

Agreed, it is the lesser of two evils by a long margin.
fwiw)... the prognosis (of burning fossil fuels) paints a picture of a world that would be more profoundly damaged in the long term than one ravaged by nuclear war.

A sobering thought.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by mental4astro

I will never support a power source that will condemn countless generations of MY children to the madness of looking after the waste. This includes the decommisioned reactors, contaminated power sites, ground water, etc. There is nothing smart about it.

I completely agree with the principle you stating here Alexander. I am not a fan of nuclear power and I will make no attempt to marginalise the significant issues involved with it... However, I would encourage you to consider the legacy of damage we are leaving as a result of burning fossil fuels with the same spirit of objectivity.

It is actually far worse.

[Astro_Bot]

Well, if we're going to go off topic, may as well go the whole hog ...

What piques my interest is that many people (excluding, of course, our learned IIS members!) complain about the release of radiation from nuclear energy yet, each year, more radioisotopes are released from burning coal than from nuclear power, and more people die from coal-related incidents than nuclear power-related incidents. People complain about the risk of a nuclear accident, but use 40+ y/o reactor technology as their example ... kinda like complaining about the reliability of a 1970 MGB and using that as a reason to distrust all future vehicles, regardless of what they may be. And, of course, people fear something like Fukushima, yet that 40 y/o reactor (built on a fault line, in a Tsunami zone, hit by a double natural disaster on the same day that was five times its design limit, in densely-populated Japan, with under-resourced response mechanisms, hampered by opaque management ... could the surrounding circumstances have been any worse?) has still only managed to hospitalise 4 people (for radiation exposure) - and they've all recovered. I'm not saying that nuclear energy is without risks - clearly they are substantial - but they are manageable. The main problem is that public perception (i.e. fear) is greatly out of proportion to the facts.

Waste management is a different issue, but if you define waste to include gaseous emissions, then the waste issues of coal seem to be significantly larger than those of nuclear fission, including the impact on future generations. I could say more about waste management, but, alas, I would have to use words like "paralysed", "myopic" and "political football" ... and I don't want to do that!

I think many people (quite understandably) are misled by our historical inability (or refusal) to cost all externalities associated with power generation. It's an approach that still needs some bedding down amongst the populace, but it's entirely necessary to permit fair comparison.

What I do disagree with, is that nuclear energy will be cheaper - there is no clear evidence that it will be so. It may be, depending (I think) on scale and technology employed in waste management and fuel processing, but I've yet to see any compelling evidence.

Also, keep in mind that, even if "we" decide to go nuclear tomorrow, it would take 15+ years to get a reactor into service .. and that's reactor #1 of 25 or so. I doubt we could commission them any faster than one per year, and that's damn fast. So, it's no panacea for our imminent problems, but may yet be necessary. IMHO, we should not write it off - we should continue research and planning to maintain it as a potential addition to Australia's power generation mix.


(This post is intended to stimulate thought, not argument, if you know what I mean).

[ourkind (Carlos)]

Originally Posted by nightstalker

Dark skys and no more power bills

cold showers and dinner and the wife having to do the washing by hand would probably be a little harsh though.

[Peter.M]

Obviously we couldn't use nuclear power, its safer than almost every energy supply that can produce the quantity we need. It is more friendly to the environment than any other sources of power that make this volume of electricity. And what would we do with all that dangerous scary barreled waste when were done with it.

Its not like BHP are digging a mile deep hole in the desert that we could bury it in. We wouldn't want to contaminate the land where all of the uranium came from anyway.

[Larryp (Laurie)]

I totally agree, Astrobot

[Peter.M]

I dont know about nuclear power making energy more affordable either CURRENTLY, however we have to think to the future. Nuclear power has an almost linear relationship with Uranium price and thus its price has increased linearly meanwhile coal and gas power does not.

I think in the future coal and gas power will be far higher than fission based power especially if the government decide on increasing this carbon price. And maby we need to look into investing in the large capital cost of these reactors now.

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

The legacy of fossil fuels is a real one, I totally agree. But to switch from fossil to nuclear JUST to reduce emissions is an absurdity. It is just swapping one poison for another.

Implementing "alternative" power sources will take no longer than nuclear. The technology is there. What isn't is the Corporate will as the vested interests of the status quo wants to keep their money stream running, & doesn't stand to make a buck NOW, or ever, by having these systems implemented. These vested interests have their spin machine in the ear of government to keep themselves rich. That is the way of capitalism.

It will take courage & balls to stand up to these powerful corporations for the interests of the planet & humanity. From people & government, & yes, from corporations too.

I'm not happy with fossil fuels. Nuclear is NOT an alternative.

[Zhou (Mick)]

I admit most Aussies are very anti nuclear power and I also acknowledge the problems associated with using this form of energy. However, the clear and present danger is AGW caused by the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and the worst culprit of them all is coal. Counties such as Australia and China have a real fixation on burning this stuff and the consequenses of this are not good to put it lightly. Uranium might not be ideal but fossil fuels and their effect on our global environment is much worse.

Of course my first preference is for renewables such as solar, wind, tidal and geothermal and I do hope governments and industry pull their fingers out and start looking at seriously developing these technologies. I also hope fusion power can be developed and become viable in the next couple of decades too

[Zhou (Mick)]

As for power prices they will just keep going up. I guess we just have to be sensible how we use electricity.

[GrampianStars (Rob)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

... the prognosis (of burning fossil fuels) paints a picture of a world that would be more profoundly damaged in the long term than one ravaged by nuclear war.....

You CAN'T be serious

100% genetic mutation of plants and animals for eternity

ALL Humanity and Animals on the brink of EXTINCTION

However on the upside whoever is left might just be Xmen

Originally Posted by clive milne

Well... Climate change could make much of the world too hot for human habitation within just three centuries, research recently released showed......
btw) Anyone care to challenge the scientific basis for this argument...?

A very broad statement that...
A link to peer reviewed papers would be a start

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

Hi Mick.

We need to step back from the argument of emissions & environmental consequences for a moment, & look to understand what is keeping real change from happening.

The fixation on coal comes from its quick and reliable technology. Also, there is so much money being made from digging the stuff up & from burning it. The same with uranium & nuclear power. Our dependence on power effectively sees these two groups as protected spieces. Money talks.

If you are corporation with an interest in promoting alternative power, you really have bugger all chance of getting anywhere the way things are now. Unless governments are brave & moral enough to listen & act appropriately nothing will change, and their big corporate masters will be pleased.

Our problem is also cultural as much as practical. Buy, buy, buy. Spend, spend, spend. You can't have it both ways.

If you were a multi billion dollar corporation, would you want your business stopped dead in its tracks? You are there to make money for yourself. I am, though my budget is much smaller.

The problem is multi faceted. The only "alternative" is compromise and compassion. Who's got the balls?

[Zhou (Mick)]

Originally Posted by mental4astro

Our problem is also cultural as much as practical. Buy, buy, buy. Spend, spend, spend. You can't have it both ways.

You have that one spot on! I was reading an article a few weeks ago about tips to reduce energy consumption (mainly to save money) and one of the tips was to not leave your heated towel rail/ rack on overnight. Towel warmer! I didn't even know these things existed or people even bought such appliances. As a society we have such a yearning want to consume even if it is for something we dont even really want (my appologies to towel warmer owners ).

The problem is multi faceted. The only "alternative" is compromise and compassion. Who's got the balls?

Quite. There are many people who do want to compromise but sadly many others are put off from doing so because of the perception they are losing out on something. Big business, of course, wants to and has to make money and that includes companies dealing with energy. But in the current geo-political environment where the market rules it is hard to see how society at large can do much.