A future for nuclear power In NSW/Australia? (3 Viewers)

[Enlightened_One]

So do I, because then we'd have a nuclear reactor in New South Wales, and I'll be able to laugh at you.

And I'd laugh at you when you glow in the dark.

 

[Xayma]

Well considering a coal powerplant has more radition coming out of it then a properly controlled nuclear powerplant it would be quite strange.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Not really, because I was implying you'd be living next to the damn thing. I don't know anyone who lives near any coal power plants, though I do know some people from Muswellbrook, and they don't glow in the dark.

I was being humourous, but I'm not very good at it, so just humour me.

 

[Generator]

Something else to consider...

Australia opts out of international energy project
The World Today - Wednesday, 29 June , 2005 12:26:00
Reporter: Michael Vincent


ELEANOR HALL: There are calls today for Australia to take part in a major international energy project which could revolutionise the supply of the world's energy and have major environmental benefits.

Countries representing a third of the world's population have just invested in an experimental nuclear fusion reactor with the promise of unlimited clean energy within decades.

The bold $16 billion project will be built in France after an international agreement overnight. But Australia is not involved and both scientists and the energy industry say that's a mistake.

This report from Michael Vincent.

MICHAEL VINCENT: The International Thermo-nuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER for short, will be the biggest fusion reactor ever built. Current nuclear powerplants operate using fission, splitting atoms to create heat and power.

But ITER will bash hydrogen ions together. Resulting fusion will release energy with – supporters say – minimal or no radioactive waste. Fusion in simple terms uses a big magnetic field to bash the atoms together. But until now, experiments have sucked more energy than they've released. The new test reactor promises to create 10 times more energy than it uses.

MATTHEW HOLE: The physics that underpins it and the technology that underpins it is well understood and we know that if we build ITER now it will work, so it's not a theoretical pie in the sky challenge.

MICHAEL VINCENT: Dr Matthew Hole is a physicist specialising in nuclear fusion at the ANU (Australian National University). He also chairs this country's ITER committee. Made up of five universities and nuclear science organisations, it wants Australia to join the ambitious project.

MATTHEW HOLE: At the present Australia is not involved in the ITER project at all. Australia has a small involvement in fusion physics from a curiosity-driven perspective, which is primarily funded through the Department of Education, Science, and Technology, but it has no goal-driven component.

MICHAEL VINCENT: Dr Hole says Australia currently spends less than $2 million a year on fusion research, but could become an investor in ITER for as little as $6 million a year.

The Australian Institute of Energy, which has representation across all areas of the industry, says Australia has $500 million in its low emissions fund. The institute's Tony Vassallo says fusion technology would not be a threat to the uranium industry, because commercial fusion power plants are decades off.

TONY VASSALLO: The fusion projects have been running for decades and have consumed huge amounts of money, and I think you'll find that there'll be a bit of a reluctance to invest tens or hundreds of millions of dollars over many years for an outcome that may still be a quarter of a century away.

MICHAEL VINCENT: Isn't that a bit short-sighted?

TONY VASSALLO: It is, it is, and I think I would really feel that the Australian Government should have a representative in the ITER community, basically to keep up to speed with what's happening.

We do have some very good intellectual property in Australia, which could contribute to the project and it would keep Australia's science and industry plugged into the development and what will evolve from this type of research is a lot of spin offs, because it's very much a materials and an industry-based project.

New materials have to be developed, new ways of handling fusion, plasmas, and there'll be quite a deal of spin-off for industry, and of course Australia won't have a seat at that table unless it's put some money into that project.

MICHAEL VINCENT: And there could be more immediate benefits. Dr Matthew Hole says like the defence industries, if Australia became involved in ITER, it could potentially win contracts to build part of the massive 800 cubic metre reactor.

MATTHEW HOLE: You may be interested to learn that the first wall of the vessel will be comprised of lithium. One mine in Australia produces 60 per cent of the world's lithium.

In addition to that, Australia is a considerable supplier of the world's rare metals, which will be used in the construction of such experiments and ideally in the longer time scale, fusion power plants, so Australia is also a supplier of rare metals that would be used in fusion power, so it's, it could be argued, a diversification of Australian resources.

MICHAEL VINCENT: Science Minister, Dr Brendan Nelson was not available for comment.

ELEANOR HALL: Michael Vincent with that report.


Source: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1403140.htm

 

[jm1234567890]

Nuclear power sounds good, but the remaining waste from it, no matter how small is always a problem. No matter what container they are put in, and no matter how deep they are burried, the container will always break down before the nuclear waste inside does.

If this stuff contaminates the soil, you cannot use the soil at all, for anything, for 250,000 years. This threat isn't worth it.

After observing the problems suffered in Europe - like a few people have developed two heads, some have developed 5 arms and quite a few Europeans have lost half their brains and have turned into socialists! Australia cannot take this risk!

Other viable alternatives, include:

the burning of rubbish
Solar/Wind/Hydro
Hydrogen
Some rock bed thing which i read above
Ethanol
Methane captured from a) human waste b) waste tips as they slowly decompose.

but the mutations in europe were from chernobyl...

and nuclear power wont be here for ever. It will be the temporary solution until we develop fusion power.

solar/wind etc. have yet to be proven to work... name one nation that gets a moajority of its power from solar/wind.

if we need energy now, just build a damn reactor.

 

[jm1234567890]

But it's not now that Carr is talking about, it's for the long run. And a Nuclear reactor isn't something that you can just prop up for a short length of time.

You might see it as a temporary solution, but the side effects won't be temporary.

The renewable energies do work, Germany gets a fair bit of its energy from this, but because no government is willing to really fund it, the research is not being done to make it reach potential.

well in temporary i mean 50-100 years.

I think the side effects can be contained. besides our energy requirements in 50 years will be far too high for conventional renewable energy to supply. Unless someone can make a solar-cell that converts ~90% of the sun's energy to electricity...

 

[hfis]

Something else to consider...

It's not worth considering until they have at least managed a sustained fusion reaction, and been able to contain it/harvest energy from it. Any involvement on Australia's behalf at this time (other than sending over a few scientists to help maybe) would be a waste of money. I agree that the future of power does lie in thermonuclear fusion, but in the meantime we need to execute the bleeding heart anti-VSU save-the-trees hippies and give nuclear fission our unconditional support.

 

[jm1234567890]

It's not worth considering until they have at least managed a sustained fusion reaction, and been able to contain it/harvest energy from it. Any involvement on Australia's behalf at this time (other than sending over a few scientists to help maybe) would be a waste of money. I agree that the future of power does lie in thermonuclear fusion, but in the meantime we need to execute the bleeding heart anti-VSU save-the-trees hippies and give nuclear fission our unconditional support.

yeah, australia isn't the richest country in the world. Nuclear fusion is still some way off.

 

[Enlightened_One]

On a related note, methinks that it might be time to stop selling coal overseas because we're going to run out very soon and if we withhold coal from Japan they'll think of something alternate and sustainable pretty fast.

Back on topic, the biggest reason that advances into alternate energy sources are hampered is through oil companies etc buying out the patent. Those companies probably have an alternate power source waiting to be monopolised when coal and oil is exhausted.

And, on that note, may be the reason why our government won't help find an alternative to coal. They just make too much money with it. Same with unranium, it would become worthless and we'd lose a lot of potential money.

Still, maybe things like solar panels would work if people were willing to change their lifestyles a little. When it's dark, it's dark, too bad. Still this would have a massive affect that would be impossible to handle at first. And many industries would suffer or collapse, or be forced to go back to the drawing board for one.

 

[Xayma]

It's not worth considering until they have at least managed a sustained fusion reaction, and been able to contain it/harvest energy from it. Any involvement on Australia's behalf at this time (other than sending over a few scientists to help maybe) would be a waste of money.

Do you think we will get to send scientists over without any money being inputted? One of the deal clinchers for France was that the Japanese get 20% of the scientist spots for only 10% of the project cost.

 

[hfis]

On a related note, methinks that it might be time to stop selling coal overseas because we're going to run out very soon and if we withhold coal from Japan they'll think of something alternate and sustainable pretty fast.

Well gee-whiz, did you perhaps ever consider that maybe - just maybe - there might be an alternative energy source available that would stop us from using any more of this precious black rock? You know, one that with the exception of two accidents (one of which was caused by human error) has worked flawlessly throughout its entire history to power a large portion of many first-world nations? Could such a wonderful energy source possibly exist? COULD IT ENLIGHTENED_ONE? OR IS THIS JUST A FUCKING CANDY-DREAM OF RAINBOWS AND MAGIC AND UNICORNS?

If the waste bothers you so much, launch it into the damn sun.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Yeah it is actually a candy sort of dream. And what's with the capitals, are you trying to be noticed?
Anyway, only two accidents in it's history? If you're referring to nuclear power than just remember that two it doesn't have that long a history, and that those two mistakes are hardly trivial.
And in my previous post, did you think I wasn't being a bit of sarcastic?

 

[Xayma]

Yeah it is actually a candy sort of dream. And what's with the capitals, are you trying to be noticed?
Anyway, only two accidents in it's history? If you're referring to nuclear power than just remember that two it doesn't have that long a history, and that those two mistakes are hardly trivial.
And in my previous post, did you think I wasn't being a bit of sarcastic?

Chernoybl should not be considered, that was an older plant design (no plant produced today could undergo that reaction) and nearly all saftey overrides were overridden.

Three Mile Island had a few design signalling faults which have been fixed as well as poor training mechanisms with regards to how people react under stress.

 

[Xayma]

Umm it was the former soviet union, they knew of many design problems in the plant but failed to notify the operators.

 

[hfis]

Chernoybl should not be considered, that was an older plant design (no plant produced today could undergo that reaction) and nearly all saftey overrides were overridden.

Three Mile Island had a few design signalling faults which have been fixed as well as poor training mechanisms with regards to how people react under stress.

Yeah, so fucking suck it Enlightened_One, you're wrong. As always.

 

[pete_mate]

this debate is notorious for ignorant idiots, that dont know anything about physics and economics, yet make a judgement based on:

- pop culture references, (radiation is glowy green stuff!)
- chernobyl,
- not 3 mile island, that was contained, no damage was done

3 Mile Island Stats: Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem

and we all wonder why we get cancer? its because there is a huge thermo-nuclear bomb in the sky that rains radiation on us constantly. therefore, the amount of radiation one gets from the sun, dwarfs the amount you get from some tiny reaction inside a plant, even if you live next door to it your gonna get 100x the radiation from the sun then the plant

 

[pete_mate]

nuclear power generation could be a very efficient industry. theoretically this is economically great. however as it is more efficient not that as many jobs will be required as in coal power generation, and nuclear would effectively be replacing coal power generation. this will mean i significant number of jobs losses.

so basically you can have an industry which is economically more efficient then coal + job losses

or

the benefits of increased exports and an industry which is just as, if not more effective, then nuclear power in geothermal power generation.

i can tell you know nothing of economics instantly. i highly doubt geo-thermal gives the same kw per cent output as nuclear.

if we develop a nuclear industry, we can use the uranium resources as inputs and VALUE ADD to it by producing electricity which we can then export, OR we could develop hydrogen producing plants with the enerfy and run our cars using fuel cells which are faster than petrol engine cars!

 

[Rafy]

Alas i revive this topic due to the four corners program tonight. Did anybody see it? I found it quite good. It detailed how couhtries such as sweden who have nuclear power dont fear it, although those that dont seem to hate it. Also goes into great deatil into Swedens mindboggling nuclear waste disposal sites.

Clearly we must move away from Coal fired power. Nuclear seems the most viable option.

An outline here:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1441248.htm

It will be rebroadcast 11pm Wednesday 24 August

 

[Generator]

*bump*

I think that it's time to renew the debate -

Who wants a nuclear neighbourhood?

 

[HotShot]

i will help u out,

nuclear power, comes with many problems mainly waste disposal. For that reason it is not viable.

done finished

meanwhile stick to coal.