nuclear energy!!! whats it worth to us?

[fringe_dweller]

so you think nuke power is the only source of nuke pollution?

some quotes from this webpage

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

'Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations.'

'The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.'

'Generally, the amount of thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of uranium.'

'Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.'

[fringe_dweller]

more some good stuff here
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/whyu.htm
more on coal fired plants
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp

[fringe_dweller]

I cant find the quote now from the many webpages i found, but a another interesting point about coal is, given the kg to kg energy diff to nuke, does anyone take into account the unbelievably massive amount of fossil fuels used to transport via gigantic ships around the globe, the coal to countries of destination? when you factor this into coal - it doesnt look good for coal exports

[wraithe]

why use either of them....use the safer alternatives...nobody died from utilising the sun...maybe from sun exposure but we cant stop the sun, but we can use it...unless there is a reason why you think we should not use something that is harmless to our environment, and we dont control or companies cant charge a premium for....

[acropolite (Phil)]

For those interested here is some relevant info from this source

Nuclear Power and the Environment
Nuclear power has at least as much environmental impact as electricity production from fossil fuels. Every step in mining, processing, fabricating and using uranium to decommissioning of nuclear power stations and nuclear waste disposal is associated with high emissions of nuclear radiation, which is at least as dangerous as emissions associated with electricity from fossil fuels.
The mining and processing of uranium, its enrichment to make fuel, the decommissioning of nuclear power stations, and the disposal of nuclear waste are energy intensive processes which consume large amounts of fossil fuels.
The largest single contributor to greenhouse emissions, other than electricity generation, in SA is the Olympic Dam project at Roxby Downs.
Nuclear power requires substantial areas of land for mining, milling, processing, conversion, enrichment, power stations, and waste disposal.
The mining, milling, processing, refining, and enrichment of uranium, the construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power stations and nuclear waste disposal pollute the atmosphere with radioactive gases.
At Roxby about 20,000 tonnes of ore must be mined and processed to produce one tonne of enriched uranium fuel for a nuclear power station.
Nuclear waste at Roxby is pumped into an unsealed dam from where the radioactive, toxic liquid is allowed to leak into the underlaying soil. Solids left behind will eventually cover 720 hectares to a height of 30 metres. This waste, which will remain radioactive for longer than known human habitation in Australia, will be covered with a layer of soil and rock.
At Beverley and Honeymoon, radioactive toxic liquid waste is being pumped into the underground water.
The shallow burial nuclear waste repository proposed by the Federal Government for the north of SA will be used to store low-level radioactive waste. It will also be used to store medium-level nuclear waste, which will remain radioactive for longer than Europeans have occupied Australia.
Australia generates high-level nuclear waste, in the form of spent fuel rods. These fuel rods come from the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights near Sydney. The Australian Government plans to build another, larger nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. This reactor will increase the rate of generation of high, medium and low level nuclear waste.
Sweden has purpose-built facilities for deep, retrievable storage of nuclear waste. By comparison with Sweden, countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Japan and the USA make much larger quantities of nuclear waste. None of these countries has facilities comparable to Sweden.

[fringe_dweller]

Originally Posted by wraithe

why use either of them....use the safer alternatives...nobody died from utilising the sun...maybe from sun exposure but we cant stop the sun, but we can use it...unless there is a reason why you think we should not use something that is harmless to our environment, and we dont control or companies cant charge a premium for....

I cant take these presently minnows of energy seriously yet, how do you create power from solar when the sun goes down and when its cloudy? store up solar energy in dirty filthy enviroment destroying, land fill filling lead/mercury batteries? - they will have their day perhaps?, it hasnt arrived yet i'm afraid - Why go for a reliable and dependable energy source? I think a picture is better than a thousand words - I like this one off the previous website

[fringe_dweller]

Phil that is from a greenies propoganda website, i'm sorry not interested, i already have had their lets all live in caves, eat lentils and ride pushbikes (maybe their already rich and financially well off - but theres new people coming through all the time that arent of course, wheres the next lot of revenue coming from?) shrill propoganda drilled into me for years now, I think I can almost quote it from memory now. Not one mention of sources of figures and facts, typical!

'The largest single contributor to greenhouse emissions, other than electricity generation, in SA is the Olympic Dam project at Roxby Downs.
Nuclear power requires substantial areas of land for mining, milling, processing, conversion, enrichment, power stations, and waste disposal.'

well duh! it also provides the same amount proportionally or more of revenue and work for tens of thousands of south australians, directly and indirectly, and indeed all australians (better check your super investment portfolio's you may be making money off these mines! and you will consequentially go to evengelical militant greenie hell when you die)
whats happening at those coal mines in qld - wheres the wave of hysteria and outcry over coal and the mining/exporting of, and pollution created doing so? strange, just deathly silence in this area?
Frankly, myself, and I am sure many south aussies, just see a lot this anti nuke sentiment as more pure east coast centric anti-south australianism. After all these years of it, it is getting hard differentiate when it is or isnt, ie I remember one east coast federal politician loudly proclaiming in the media years ago at election time SA just shouldnt exist, I think it was something to do with us complaining about the murray was reduced to a trickle at our end or the state carve up of GST or whatever, that went down very well here i can tell you.
- tell you what, let all the states just split/secede into our own little countries and go our own way (dont forget all the little regions within the states that want to secede and form their own little countries as well!) , forget about australia 'the country' it was a quaint idea while it lasted.