nuclear energy!!! whats it worth to us?

wraithe · #1 20-05-2006, 09:44 PM

I hope i havent touched on a subject that gets me into trouble with too many here...
It has become a passionate subject for me over the years and i feel i may be doing the right thing by bringing it up now..I am not an advocate of some thing so devastating to our world and would welcome any one wanting to know why i dont support it.. I have looked into this subject for the past 20 years and have yet seen anything that is environmentally friendly.. The heat waste from a nuclear power station is so damaging to the environment that if it was really looked at the they would start shutting them down.. In the US these monstrocities have caused total loss of some of the best fishing grounds in the US and cheasepeake bay alone is nearly destroyed as a fishing ground when at one time it could have fed the US easily.. The other issue is how long will uranium last, the ore is only available in australia and canada, other sites in the world dont have a higher enough grade of ore suitable for use and the ore that is available in not in enough quantities to support the present power stations let alone the required ones that world would need to go nuclear.. I f the funding was put into solar and wind, then we would have solar panels on every roof in australia, with the government being able to pay a majority of the cost easily..
another thing that makes me laugh is when i get told that solar air conditioning is not feasible, (what happens if it rains for a week), well really! who wants air con when its raining...
anyway, anybody feels they want to discuss this please do, and i promise i will try to put up a good argument, and a polite one...i think to debate with politeness will go further than to jump on a high horse and try to ram in peoples throats..

Starkler (Geoff) · #2 20-05-2006, 10:36 PM

Nuclear power appears to make a lot of sense considering our large uranium reserves.
Australia is a big contributor of greenhouse gasses due to our reliance on brown coal. We also have more space than virtually anyone for the safe disposal of nuclear wastes.

If nuclear power makes sense anywhere on this planet, there wouldnt be many places more suited to it than Australia, except for the fact we have huge cheap reserves of dirty burning brown coal.

Did you know that solar photovoltiac cells have a break even point of 20 years to get back the energy used to manufacture them ?

avandonk · #3 20-05-2006, 10:36 PM

I as some sort physicist will totally and utterly agree with you. At best Nuclear energy will only contribute at best about 6% of our energy needs.
A nuclear reactor only returns about twenty times the amount of fossil fuel energy needed to build it. Let alone the cost of the fuel! They have a life of twenty years maybe.

Then you and all your decendants have the problem of the waste for at least one or two hundred thousand years!

Bert

wraithe · #4 21-05-2006, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starkler

Nuclear power appears to make a lot of sense considering our large uranium reserves.
Australia is a big contributor of greenhouse gasses due to our reliance on brown coal. We also have more space than virtually anyone for the safe disposal of nuclear wastes.

If nuclear power makes sense anywhere on this planet, there wouldnt be many places more suited to it than Australia, except for the fact we have huge cheap reserves of dirty burning brown coal.

Did you know that solar photovoltiac cells have a break even point of 20 years to get back the energy used to manufacture them ?

Did you know that the present reserves of uranium will at best last another 30 yrs..Did you also know that the US have not built a new nuclear power station since 1978 and that they are heavily subsidised to operate..Did you also know that to produce the fuel rods for the core, it takes more electricity, produced by a coal fired power station than the amount of electricity produced by that nuclear power station...Did you also know that nuclear power stations are 30% efficent compared to 60% for coal...Did you also know that nuclear power stations release more heat to the atmosphere, per mega watt than coal..
And one last quote, solar cost recovery compared to nuclear....
solar does recover cost, nuclear does not...i prefer to recover costs...
and plz look past the propaganda, the US during the 50's started it to provide fuel for there nuclear weapons program and now they are believing there own bull...

wraithe · #5 21-05-2006, 02:03 AM

oh one other thing...
it will take 20 yrs to get a nuclear power station online...
the construction time is huge and the cost is massive and then our grand children will be whinging about those silly old idiots that left all the environmental damage for them to clean up...hang on a minute, dont we whinge about that, for all the industrial sites that left chemicals everywhere...oh yeh ddt or dieldren is not harmful..sheep dip never hurt a single farmer..
sorry just food for thought...
and thank you starkler...plz look into what i have written and dont take it personally...it is all accessable on the net as i have found a site today and put a link in my sig...
if you wish to know where i get my knowledge from then plz either post or pm...ok
good reply too...
keep them coming plz...

vespine · #6 21-05-2006, 02:31 AM

I don't disagree, but I like playing the devils advocate, and you are asking for it, so:

If nuclear power is so unsestainable and so costly to 'set up' and operate, why do they bother? Do you think it's simply a indutrial money sink? Dollars lining enough of the right pockets?

fringe_dweller · #7 21-05-2006, 02:31 AM

Wraithe, firstly hi and welcome

.
You wouldnt be biased would you?, just going by that link in your sig.
I appreciate your passion and reasons for opposing nuke energy.
But I do question some of your stats - I have read 5- 10 years to get a station up and running, never heard of 20 years before.
Why are you so focused on the U.S as an example why not places like Sweden, France, Japan who love seemingly wholeheartadly love nuke energy - some balance please. And yes i would like some links to back up some of these claims please.
I keep hearing how unfeasible it all is, well if its so economically unfeasable how come India and China are like bulls at the gate for the industry?
Also if nuke energy plants only have a life of 20 years how come all those old ones are hitting 50 years? whats the life of gas fired turbines in conventional power stations - they dont last forever either.
Bert: what do you mean by "At best Nuclear energy will only contribute at best about 6% of our energy needs" what one solitary power station are you talking about here? - I would think we need many nuke power stations thats for sure.
I wouldnt be so sure that they won't find an elegant and cheap and simple way to neutralise nuke waste in the next 200 000 years - I would put 20 to 50 years on it maybe being done. I have an inkling there is a great deal of interest in finding a way to do this even now research is happening - I read of one idea being worked on was using microbes and bacteria that can break down the waste into something harmless - thats just one idea out there.
Anyway if qld can fill there coffers and prosper greatly with coal money- so can we here with yellow cake - I dont see the diff - as for the amount of uranium out there, who knows were they'll find more large deposits thats not a foregone conclusion that it finite here or anywhere.

wraithe · #8 21-05-2006, 03:10 AM

Hey now this is gettin a nice even debate going...
i'll try to answer each and every question...
one of the limitations to nuclear waste is the fact that once it has been used it starts to decay into transuranics.. now they where building breeder reactors during the 70's, but the problem with that is that once the fuel has been used in a breeder reactor it has increased the number of transuranics and excellerated the decay into those type of isotopes...transuranics are also what the waste will continue to decay into, and they are extremely dangerous to us..once the fuel is stored it will decay for the next 24,000 yrs at which point it is 1,000 times more dangerous than the day it came out of the core... plutonium 238 is a transuranic and possibly the least harmful, it is also the isotope used in nuclear weapons..exposure to 0.01 grams of plutonium generally results in death within 3-6 months.. now when they enrich uranium, they use a cascade process and this uses huge amounts of electricity and is not economical..another thing is reprocessing, which has deadly waste and the returned amount is quite miniscule..they are presently trying to improve this process but after 30 yrs have yet to get an efficent process working...The emmissions from these plants of greatest concern are kryptonium-85, iodine-129, plutonium-239, tritium, and carbon-14
why the US, well they where the leaders in utilising the nuclear power generation process and the only advocates for over 20 years...they also had government based atomic energy comission and several other agencies, (the list is extensive and they changed names several times to suit the political environment).. Jimmy Carter said in september 1976 "We should use atomic energy only as a last resort"..its a bit funny as the US was the world leader and had already the major problem of nuclear waste...they also have a huge amount of decommisioned nuclear reactors..
The world has adopted nuclear power as no other method that is shown to be economical or environmental..One thing people dont see is the fact that nuclear power stations have destroyed so much of the ecology already..
Who is benfitting(shrugs shoulders), i dont have an answer for that, but then it dont make sense to increase the wages of the rich and reduce the wages of the poor...
I've missed a few answers here for sure...
My link on my sig...umm actually found it today..ooops no yesterday...
Seen the news and just about spun out as to why the pm would want a nuclear power station in a country that has better ways to produce electrity and there not interested in looking to anything but nuclear...
And no i am not a greeny or anything like that...we do need a nuclear reactor for medicine and research but thats all...to generate electricity..nahhh..

Now i expect some one will say how do you know about physics...well thats my interest...nuclear and astro.... and no i'm not an optical stargazer, have done and will do again soon but its like going to the city, i get lost easy...lol..

wraithe · #9 21-05-2006, 03:22 AM

ps: thank you for the welcome fringe_dweller..love your nickname...its pretty cool...but then i noticed most of you guys have some nice nicks...

Mr Bob · #10 21-05-2006, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Did you know that solar photovoltiac cells have a break even point of 20 years to get back the energy used to manufacture them ?

Thats an outdated arguement. Payback on PV is down to 3-5 years for quality cells.

acropolite (Phil) · #11 21-05-2006, 09:26 AM

IMHO nuclear for power or weapons is an accident waiting to happen, either in the present time or thousands of years in to the future when the waste is still lethal, more so in this age of terrorism. The costs of nuclear have been proven to be far higher than renewables and the risks are unacceptable. It's about time our government acted, by supporting development of renewables and encouraging efficient use of our existing energy resources. I recently posted about a local road reconstruction where 1 light that was more than sufficient to light up an intersection has been replaced by 10. That sort of waste should not happen in this day and age. There also needs to be a shift in the thinking of governments and environmentalists. It's absolutely absurd that a wind farm proposal is scuttled because a bird might fly into the blades, yet forestry practices (e.g.burnoffs, spraying) have exemption from all appropriate environmental laws (at least in our state).

[1ponders] (Paul) · #12 21-05-2006, 11:03 AM

Not being fully up on the physics of this stuff, but what about the other nuclear? Assuming that the Uranium powerstation ideas get knocked on the head (

who are we kidding. We have little or no say in this. They WILL get built!! ) what are the options for Fusion. How far off is this option?

fremanwarrior · #13 21-05-2006, 12:31 PM

Catalyst had a story on Fusion a couple of weeks ago.. Rather interesting it was.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1625306.htm

mickoking · #14 21-05-2006, 01:12 PM

Wraithe, 100% agree

Another problem with using nukes to help reduce green house gasses is a political one. If we have nuclear power up and running there will be no incentive to look at renewable energy.

We do need a debate in this country on this subject but sadly I think the debate will be hijacked by economic rationalist pollies, the uranium lobby and anyone else with a vested interest.

fringe_dweller · #15 21-05-2006, 02:43 PM

Wraithe, at least you care about something, unlike most aussies, who appear to me as eternal hedonists by night and thatcherites/nazi's by day. I admire it when people give a damn about their world and go to great lengths to educate themselves on subjects other than ones with a selfish dollar motive at the end.
You will not get any arguement from me that nuke waste isnt extremely dangerous and toxic. But its funny I dont see any debate about the dangers of benzine from unleaded fuel pumped out of our cars - oh no we wouldnt dare critisize our beloved cars/4WD! or the cocktail of even deadlier poisons spewed out by diesel engines - heaven forbid!
Again I see nuke power stations are labelled too expensive versus conventional.
I will tell you a little story - we had in this state an incredibly lucrative state run/owned electricity power generator - most lucrative business in SA in fact.
And one of the reasons we were told we had to sell/privatise it (by the then Olsen lib/tory gov - ironically originally created and commisioned by the lionised and visionary? Playford lib gov in the 50's) was because the conventional power station (torrens island) was nearly 50 years old and was in dire need of replacing, and we couldnt afford to replace it as it would send the state bankrupt even, and it was HUGE liability! and the only solution was to sell it to a multinational, as they are the only entities in the world who can afford to build/rebuild conventional power stations, governments/countries cant afford to do it anymore apparently?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wraithe

Who is benfitting(shrugs shoulders), I dont have an answer for that, but then it dont make sense to increase the wages of the rich and reduce the wages of the poor...

hey any good thatcherite knows it will all trickle down to the underclasses LOL 'dont you worry about that' - and there full of stupid people anyway? (not my words - I have actually heard that from peoples mouths) not part of the meritocracy, not worth a damn?

and thnx for compliment on nick wraithe - although my post count doesnt reflect that nick to well

mickoking · #16 21-05-2006, 03:00 PM

In the coming debate we will hear a lot about how safe nuclear power is. Fine. Instead of dumping the waste in Western Australia (not to mention the rest of the worlds waste as well). Dump it all in the federal electorate of Bennelong. Because you will hear a lot from the member of Bennelong how safe nuclear power is so there will certainly be no objection from him or his constistuants for placing nuclear waste there

fringe_dweller · #17 21-05-2006, 03:04 PM

also I see predictions that the southern states are predicted to see an overall 20% reduction in rainfall this century due to 'global warming' (ironically possibly caused? by these wonderfully cheap conventional power generators - again I will say it, what price do you out on a 20% reduction in rainfall and global warming?)
As a result of this we are going to need more water from somewhere to replace it at the least.
The most obvious way to do that is nuke powered desalination plants, and lots of them - this should also combat the rising sea levels due to global warming a bit?

It might not make sense to northern states and other states, it sure makes a hell of a lot of sense to us here in SA.
Re windfarms - I keep seeing the figure a possible one bird a year being killed in the blades, I have read differing much higher figures than that in SA newspaper, more like 10 a week in some cases, and with some endangered species that can be devestating - also do you realise how much compensation has to be paid to people who's valueable properties are devalued when eyesore windfarms are plonked in their million dollar views?
I have also mentioned here before the downsides of windfarms - in hot weather (over 35 d C - LOL) they have to be shut down or risk the turbine burning out - and the expensive turbines have to be replaced on a regular basis as they wear out of course - i think they last around 10 years max.

wraithe · #18 21-05-2006, 05:42 PM

Finally back online to reply to these..argh, shock horror, i'm using windows too...(cringes)...
Any way i am surprised at you guys..I've been waiting for someone to point out the nuclear reactors that i missed...
ok to start with there are 1200, reactors worldwide on land...Any body gettin the jist of what i missed yet...
ok, for those that don't, here goes...
War ships, submarines, aircraft carriers, etc etc...
now what i dont know is how the hell do they not heat the sea when they dont carry land based cooling ponds, oh yeh there exempt...The epa in the US have been slowly opening up there problems with nuclear power generation..KYOTO protocol calls for a reduction in green house gas pollution, if nuclear power generation is so good why, why is the US not willing to join it unconditionally...They are not alone but they do yell the loudest...lets get golliath to toe the line in regards to world ecology and the rest will slowly follow..
Nuclear powered ships and submarines leave huge heat trails when passing thru the ocean..It is detectable and that is the only way to detect some of these submarines...it is a hard process to detect them but they leave a heat trail, if that is not damaging to the ecology then i dont know what is...oh yeh heat doesnt cause global warming, only fossil fuel waste...
come on!, any heat production causes some degree of global warming, including shiney house roof's...whats wrong with the old methods of construction...oh yeh, not many like mudbricks and they dont come in all the fancy colours...
Hey guys i understand that here the arguments are a bit of a waste as you all have an interest in the planet and can see the effects of what an increase in temperaturs will do, or a decrease...but if i bring some of this up here then you guys will pass it on and this info will spread...its like domino's, as long as they align they will transfer there energy....
anyway one other thing...photovoltaic cells have increased in output in the last 20 years..dont know the exact figure but its hugely efficent compared to the 80's..and the governments dont put any large amounts of research money towards them...wind has some benefit, but like victoria(portsea i think) they installed there windmills off the coast and if you incorporate a swell generator with the wind generator then you get a double bonus and the platforn that the tower sits on is of more use than just a foundation..
Yes we have some pristene(somebody get a dictionary) coastline but we will mine it or destroy it some how so lets look at utilising the spots that are half wrecked and reduce human impact on them...by installing these turbines people wont want to live there, we hope...
your roof on your house should be solar panels, and the design and construction should be for saving on heating and cooling...now mudbrick and rammed earth are cheaper than brick but people want this fancy brick...lets get back to earth a bit and save on bills too..
another thing, about wildlife..umm i see out side that the state forestry group(known as C.A.L.M) are burning off again...Now how much did they burn this year, 100,000+ acres.. sounds like a lot of country..try the fact the forest here is very thick and they burn off all summer...even been known to light fires when no one else is allowed to light the bbq..middle of summer you get burnoffs down here, and i can tell you, it stinks, the sky is orangey red and the smoke is every where...Now i wonder how many animals where cremated by these fires, when you drive down the road past an area they are burning off, you see everything from snakes to bandicoots and kangaroos having to find a new home...If some one burnt my home i would be peeved to say the least..So using wind farms is no where near as damaging as fire...Another thing that destroys the wildlifes homes is urban sprawl, but then everybody wants a new fancy home...another that kills birds is high rise buildings, but hey i dont think they will stop building them...
enough for now...back later...

wraithe · #19 21-05-2006, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fringe_dweller

also I see predictions that the southern states are predicted to see an overall 20% reduction in rainfall this century due to 'global warming' (ironically possibly caused? by these wonderfully cheap conventional power generators - again I will say it, what price do you out on a 20% reduction in rainfall and global warming?)
As a result of this we are going to need more water from somewhere to replace it at the least.
The most obvious way to do that is nuke powered desalination plants, and lots of them - this should also combat the rising sea levels due to global warming a bit?

It might not make sense to northern states and other states, it sure makes a hell of a lot of sense to us here in SA.
Re windfarms - I keep seeing the figure a possible one bird a year being killed in the blades, I have read differing much higher figures than that in SA newspaper, more like 10 a week in some cases, and with some endangered species that can be devestating - also do you realise how much compensation has to be paid to people who's valueable properties are devalued when eyesore windfarms are plonked in their million dollar views?
I have also mentioned here before the downsides of windfarms - in hot weather (over 35 d C - LOL) they have to be shut down or risk the turbine burning out - and the expensive turbines have to be replaced on a regular basis as they wear out of course - i think they last around 10 years max.

20 + year life...

mickoking · #20 21-05-2006, 06:35 PM

Wraithe, great to see some of that Aussie passion, Fantastic