nuclear energy!!! whats it worth to us?

[fringe_dweller]

Originally Posted by wraithe

20 + year life...

I have read different quotes to 20 years, 10-15 I'm sure in local newspaper - 20 years might be the go in scandanavia or tassie - but not in tough hot conditions here.
My point is that ALL energy generating systems have a finite lifespan - not just nuke plants - as that seems to be that favourite anti-nuke angle - its economics. I understand renewable systems arent economical either, but the only one that ppl have a problem with being uneconomical and finite is NE? weird?
Do conventional power plants create heat as well (as well as millions of tonnes and tonnes of lung choking pollutants- prolly just as much as nukes?)
I lived in south west scotland not far Sellafield nuke station in northern england for a fair while - I didnt notice much heat coming from that one I even visited it once - altho i did work with ppl the were volunteer observers on their w/e's keepin an eye on leaks into the solway firth with their geiger counters, and were very concerned citizens about it all, but that cant be compared to a new modern 21st century nuke plant.
oh well good old iceland are just laughing there heads off by now during this energy crisis with all their unlimited free geothermal power
One thing that bothers me about the anti-nuke/pro renewable ppl is all the emotional/hysterical attitude they project - makes me uneasy and think they arent being totally logical and calm about it - emotion and propoganda should have no part in the debate IMO.

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by fringe_dweller

One thing that bothers me about the anti-nuke/pro renewable ppl is all the emotional/hysterical attitude they project - makes me uneasy and think they arent being totally logical and calm about it - emotion and propoganda should have no part in the debate IMO.

The problem is that the pro nuclear people have the money and the ears of the government and half of the opposition. What do the anti nukes do ? As I mentioned earlier the debate will be (and already is to some extent) hijacked by those groups that stand to make a tidy profit on uranium regardless of the concequences. There will be emotion, Its our future and that of our kid's involved.

[robagar]

Nukes are only uneconomical because coal power is cheap. And coal power is only cheap because its pollution can be dumped straight into the atmosphere and ignored.

Give me contained nuclear waste over dispersed atmospheric pollution any day. And as much as I personally like windmills, no-one seriously claims that renewables can supply all the energy the world needs. Not without cutting back energy use.

But no government is ever going to sacrifice economic competitiveness for energy efficiency.

Btw, there is way more than 20 years worth of uranium on this planet. 20 years is just the current known reserve that can be extracted at a price low enough to make a profit at today's prices. As the price goes up, more of the reserve becomes economic to extract, which ups the time scale to hundreds of years (maybe enough time to get fusion working even!). And uranium can be reprocessed and reused many times over.

[gaa_ian (Ian)]

OK I will wade into this debate
Good to see such passionate debate on this issue !
I had the opinion 25yrs ago that the best thing to do with uranium is to "Leave it in the ground" I have seen nothing since then to change my opinion.
Most of Europe was contaminated with fallout from Chernobl & that is just 1 station that melted down !
The Aboriginals of Arnhem land had the right Idea about the Uranium rich rock of Ranger, they called it the "Sickness Country" and avoided it !
Pity we didn't listen & learn the lesson that 40,000 yrs of living on this land has taught them.
Whatever the efficentcies are or are not, the bottom line is "Nuclear waste is not safe and it is almost forever"
Why else do you think there is so much interest in disposing of the small amount of nuclear waste that is produced by Lucas Heights, here in the NT where there are not many federal liberal votes ?
If Australia is to go down the road of wanting to build a Nuclear Power station, i will have to dust of my 1980's Greeni credentials and start protesting, campaining & agitating.
If nuclear "Fusion" is as good as it is promised to be, great thing, go for it.
Until that is proven, lets go Biodiesel, Gas, solar, wave power ...etc ....

PS: In fact, i have already taken the 1st step & sent this post into the local paper as a letter to the editor !

[norm]

Interesting debate to say the least, especially with the increasing costs of crude oil.

The way I see it is lets go nuclear all the way. We're only here for a short period of time, so worrying about whats going to happen in 1000yrs let alone 25000 years is pointless. Sure there are dangers, very extreme dangers and Chernobyl is as bad it could ever get. That said, if the human pysche was to worry about every invention made we would still be living in the Stone age and we wouldn't get past a wooden club, let alone fire.

I'm just a layman, not a physicist, nor an engineer, but surely with over 400 Land based Nuclear Power Stations, one would have to imagine they've got it fairly under control and stable to warrant their existence and future development. I just can't see how any nation would seriously contemplate using this type of energy source without ensuring as much possible safety is inbuilt to protects its very own people/country.

I'd personally be more worried about getting cancer, cause I can assure you its more likely to happen than a catastrophe of a nuclear meltdown destroying Earth, a drum of spent uranium falling off the back of a truck or a lid popping off 2km below earth and uranium leeching back up to the surface.

[mickoking]

I have noted that Johnny H wants to export our uranium to China, Hmmmmm. I wonder what their saftey standards are like? And how are they going to dispose of the waste? Probably dump it in Tibet or Inner Mongolia.

[wraithe]

Geothermal, pretty good solution really...NZ are doing well with it and there not alone...The pacific ring is an ideal spot for geothermal..but there are lots more world wide...I'm not just anti-nuclear..i would like to see all fossil fuel production stopped also..and as for gettin a solar car...well why not a horse for short journeys and a train for longer ones..
pity i'm not allowed to just keep my horse in my back yard, would save on mowing and i wouldnt have to drive so far to go for a ride...
yes in some ways i would like to turn the clock back but in others we need to go forward, but not blindly..just because something has been around for years doesnt make it safe...

[wraithe]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001457.html

[wraithe]

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml

this one has the best list of nuclear accidents...
oh and one more thing, nuclear power plants have a major shutdown problem? How do you pump cooling into something that is getting higher in pressure as it gets hotter, without releasing that pressure...
Sorry its an age old questions that is yet to be answered and has proven that we dont have the answer...

I cant cut and paste my links and the one above isnt working...
i will try to get it for you some how...it has some of the international accidents on it...
www.atomicarchive.com this will take you to the site, do a search for "accidents", the first on the list is the one above...

[gaa_ian (Ian)]

Thanks Wraite !
Your post has prompted me to speak out publicly about this Important issue !
I work in heavy industry & this gives me even more reason to oppose nuclear power. I know about the corners cut, the way accidents happen (are caused).
Play with fire and you may burn yourself, play with nukes & you may burn the whole country !

[robagar]

Originally Posted by wraithe

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001457.html

looks like a very short list to me, if you consider the 6000 coal miners that die every year in China alone.

[robagar]

Originally Posted by wraithe

...nuclear power plants have a major shutdown problem? How do you pump cooling into something that is getting higher in pressure as it gets hotter, without releasing that pressure...
Sorry its an age old questions that is yet to be answered and has proven that we dont have the answer

The new pebble bed reactor design has some nice answers, like actually producing less energy as they get hotter...

(cut n' pasted from the wikipedia entry)

"When a pebble-bed reactor gets hotter, the more rapid motion of the atoms in the fuel decreases the probability of neutron capture by 235U atoms by an effect known as Doppler broadening. When the uranium is heated, its nuclei move more rapidly in random directions, and therefore see and generate a wider range of relative neutron speeds. 238U, which forms the bulk of the uranium in the reactor, is much more likely to absorb fast-moving neutrons.[3] This reduces the number of neutrons available to cause 235U fission, reducing the power output by the reactor. This natural negative feedback places an inherent upper limit on the temperature of the fuel, without any operator intervention.


The reactor is cooled by an inert, fireproof gas, so it cannot have a steam explosion as a light-water reactor can.


The coolant has no phase transitions—it starts as a gas and remains a gas.


The moderator is solid carbon. It does not act as a coolant, move, or have phase transitions (i.e. between liquid and gas) as the light water in conventional reactors does.


A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail, and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It simply goes up to a designed "idle" temperature, and stays there. In that state, the reactor vessel radiates heat, but the vessel and fuel spheres remain intact and undamaged. The machinery can be repaired or the fuel can be removed.
These safety features are not just theoretical. This exact test was performed (and filmed) with the German AVR reactor. All the control rods were removed, and the coolant flow was halted. Afterward, the fuel balls were sampled and examined for damage. There was none."

[wraithe]

Originally Posted by robagar

looks like a very short list to me, if you consider the 6000 coal miners that die every year in China alone.

Yes it is..indian point is not on that list to start with, another is long island...
lost of accidents are hard to find on the net, there are quite a few missing from these lists and i think it may take me a while to find them all...

[wraithe]

A 15 MWe demonstration reactor, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Versuchsreaktor (AVR - roughly translated to working group test reactor), was built at the Jülich Research Centre in Jülich, West Germany. The goal was to gain operational experience with a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. The unit's first criticality was on August 26, 1966. The facility ran successfully for 21 years, and was decommissioned on December 1, 1988, in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster.
The AVR was originally designed to breed 233Uranium from 232Thorium. Thorium is about three times as abundant in the Earth's crust as uranium, and an effective thorium breeder reactor is therefore considered valuable technology. However, the fuel design of the AVR contained the fuel so well that the transmuted fuels were uneconomic to extract—it was cheaper to simply use natural uranium isotopes.
The AVR used helium coolant. Helium has a low neutron cross-section. Since few neutrons are absorbed, the coolant remains less radioactive. In fact, it is practical to route the primary coolant directly to power generation turbines. Even though the power generation used primary coolant, it is reported that the AVR exposed its personnel to less than 1/5 as much radiation as a typical light water reactor.

quoted from the wikipedia you used...
expense has made it uneconomical to use...
breeder reactors are very expensive to use and was going to be the answer to the waste from LWR's but alas, ?
and 1/5th the radiation exposure, is still too much...is it not dangerous to go outside uncovered yet we allow people to be exposed to something even more dangerous...nature is dying, lets use renewables, like grow trees, cut down, regrow..use all the resources we have and get the greeny's looking at the right things not the things we can maintain..fishing is another, conservatively we should be able to maintain life but we are destroying it..if there is ET's that have been here, i'm sure they dont want to come back.. i'm sure that i wouldnt if i seen this place from out there...

[gaa_ian (Ian)]

There was a very interesting Podcast on "Ockhams Razor" ABC radio national. It spoke of Australias role in the nuclear fuel cycle.
Norm - if you are more worried about getting cancer that Nuclear power, this is one podcast you should listen to !
Australia as a Nation would have to be Patently STUPID to accept the worlds Nuclear waste !
Can we be assured of political & climate stability for the next 1000 years (the most dangerous portion of the wastes 1/2 life).
If storing this stuff underground is so safe, lets build the storage facility in a sheep paddock, just outside Canberra !

[Mr Bob]

I dont want to get into a debate about what or how Australians should power thier country but what serious / viable alternative is there to nuclear? The greenies dont want coal fired or nuclear and damming rivers (do you have enough water over there?) disrupts the ecology, wind kills birds and is an eyesore (I quite like them, they're hypnotic) and solar would need a huge area to produce the equivalent energy thus once again disrupting the ecosystem. Wave power is still in its infancy and is prone to malfunction due to salt and heavy seas.

In saying all of that I happily live off the grid with my own RAPS.

[robagar]

Not all greenies have their heads in the sand:

Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy

[Mr Bob]

They aint real greenies then

[robagar]

burn the heretics!

[ving (David)]

interesting debate wraithe

• most of your stats are older than me

• all of the powerplants that have had problems were (it seems) built 40-50 years ago (technology has changed (I hope))

• there sure is some political agenda behind all this!

• you some fatcats gunna packet wadds of cash

• nope, newkiller energy is not a long term solution, but niether are windfarms that will probably in the long run caue the extinction of a few bird species (well at least on a local scale)

• untill waste is delt with properly we shouldnt build a powerplant

• i enjoy making lists...

• i am currently against making a power plant, but not against researching the making of power plants as they might (if we can eventually make them safe enough) provide a short term sollution

welcome aboard