The Energy Debate (1 Viewer)

[Farfour]

Labor's thinking of introducing an emissions trading scheme to move us over to fully renewable energy by externalising the social costs of coal fired power stations and making electricity cost more, ostensibly, meaning renewables are comparatively cheaper.

What's not happened is that no one is discussing the viability of nuclear power in Australia anymore. The Rudd government is vehemently anti-nuclear for reasons which cannot be clearly explained and it's kneecapping us in the interim.

If we were actually serious about reducing emissions, we'd already have several nuclear power stations in development, I mean, we do have massive reserves of uranium.

Discuss.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

There are more viable sources of energy in Australia than nuclear power. Nuclear is no doubt a good idea and something that should be looked into (especially when quick action is needed, as in now), but I'm not comfortable that you automatically jump on the nuclear bandwagon.

I mean, how hard is it to pump water underground, bring it up as steam and spin a turbine? Sounds infinitely more simple than mining uranium, purifying it, refining it, sticking it in a bath, starting a chain reaction that's strictly controlled in order to create steam yada yada, in the end making enjoyable power but alongside not-so-enjoyable waste and possibility of nuclear weapons. Also unsafe.

 

[Farfour]

Nuclear Weapons from used Nuclear waste is a retarded argument, Jim.

Edit: There are atoms in everything, there are atomic bombs thereby we can turn the world into nukes

 

[Kwayera]

AFAIK, suitable places for geothermal energy are few and far inbetween (as much as I love geothermal energy).

Also, nuclear power is not unsafe.

 

[Darnie]

well, my understanding is that it would be stupid for us not to look into nuclear power.
It is relatively efficient, cheap, and if it is regulated properly, it is very safe. The only problem is waste.
I always thought they could put it in large steel containers and bury it underground or something, somewhere where it wont damage anything. i honestly dont see why we arent using nuclear power already.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Nuclear Weapons from used Nuclear waste is a retarded argument, Jim.

Ehh but that wasn't my argument, despite the confused wording.

AFAIK, suitable places for geothermal energy are few and far inbetween (as much as I love geothermal energy).

Any idea of potential energy output?

Also, nuclear power is not unsafe.

Surely we'd want to develop the safest power though.

 

[Farfour]

Please reiterate what your argument about nuclear weapons was d0gg.

The safest power would be zero point energy pity it's retardedly impossible at the moment. Nuclear is the chepest and safest option at the moment.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Prove that wild statement!

Enrichment programs provide opportunity for nuclear weapons? I'm opposed to most weapons, see. Guns, TNT, nuclear bombs, etc.

 

[Farfour]

Safest probably not, Cheapest

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/ncabreza/sources.html

Throw you some biased sources Nuclear Engineers are awesome though, just like Ziggy Switkowski who is a reasonable and awesome guy

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I only flicked through but it appears that nucleon panner was compared only to fossil fuels.

 

[Enteebee]

My understanding of the argument against nuclear power...

a) It takes a long time to make up for the emissions caused by creating them.
b) By the time we get all these nuclear power plants online, there'll be better, safer options meanwhile committing ourselves to nuclear we'll be stuck with it.
c) The 'good' uranium that doesn't need to be processed and thus leads to lower emissions is actually running out and then we'll need to move onto the other stuff which will require us to clean them up in some way.

 

[bigboyjames]

i will support any idea which will not cost me anything more than what i am already paying.

 

[jb_nc]

This will own anyone anti-nuclear. From the latest issue of The Chemical Engineer (807, September 2008, pg 31):

CO[sub]2[/sub] output from electricity generation

Fuel Source: CO[sub]2[/sub] emitted (g/kW-hr)
Conventional coal: 1000 g/kW-hr
Combined cycle gas turbine: 500 g/kW-hr
Photovoltaic: 58 g/kW-hr
[b]Nuclear (complete life cycle): [u]5 g/kW-hr[/u][/b]
Wind: 5 g/kW-hr
Hydro (run of river): <5 g/kW-hr

LOL @ ANTI-NUCLEAR PEOPLE

Ever notice why pretty much everyone anti-nuclear has a BA??? It's because they don't understand shit!

 

[Farfour]

I hope you're not trolling jockmonkey

 

[jb_nc]

I hope you're not trolling jockmonkey

No, access tce from your university's journal page. It was written by Daniel Ward. I gave it a citation so you should be able to find it easily. The whole issue is about "tomorrow's energy".

Pretty relevant.

 

[Snaykew]

How long does it take to build a nuclear plant and what does it cost?

 

[chicky_pie]

If this whole Global Warming thing gets the green light. Working families would become unemployed families.

 

[Darnie]

How long does it take to build a nuclear plant and what does it cost?

apparently about 4.9 billion to construct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants#Recent_construction_cost_estimates

and apparently they are using new technology to make the construction time around 5 - 6 years
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter10.html

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

This will own anyone anti-nuclear. From the latest issue of The Chemical Engineer (807, September 2008, pg 31):

CO[sub]2[/sub] output from electricity generation

Fuel Source: CO[sub]2[/sub] emitted (g/kW-hr)
Conventional coal: 1000 g/kW-hr
Combined cycle gas turbine: 500 g/kW-hr
Photovoltaic: 58 g/kW-hr
[b]Nuclear (complete life cycle): [u]5 g/kW-hr[/u][/b]
Wind: 5 g/kW-hr
Hydro (run of river): <5 g/kW-hr

LOL @ ANTI-NUCLEAR PEOPLE

Ever notice why pretty much everyone anti-nuclear has a BA??? It's because they don't understand shit!

Includes construction and transport output etc? If so, will distribute to lefties to pwn them, and will change my opinion. Oh my yes.

 

[jb_nc]

Includes construction and transport output etc? If so, will distribute to lefties to pwn them, and will change my opinion. Oh my yes.

I'm pretty sure by complete life cycle that they include that. Generally, that's what LCA does.

We can't power the world of hydro and solar alone especially considering how inefficent it is to transport electricity over large distances. i.e. river--> substation.