Politics Should Australia go nuclear?

[little graham]

you should stop reading RT lol.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/06/1260715/-Fukushima-Cesium-in-North-Atlantic-Ocean-Fish#
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/09/02/are-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-really-over/

From that page

Reports say radical Muslim jihadists killed thousands of people in the past few months alone. And yet when you take Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, whatever, their combined killings in the name of religion––well, that would be zero.

You should stop reading muslim hate pages lol

 

[little graham]

Long Live HFC will be scouring stormfront to counter this article

In northern Japan the soil in many forests, agricultural fields and on mountain slopes is now contaminated by radioactive elements. As a result these have become vast reservoirs of radioactive particles, which are absorbed by the trees and plants. With the annual shedding of leaves, the radioactive pollution ends up in the soil once more and will get absorbed time after time -and for decades to come, until it finally breaks down.

It is this cycle of continuous pollution that will be Fukushima’s ultimate legacy, preventing the use of agricultural lands and forests, thus virtually ending a traditional way of life for many of its inhabitants. Decontaminating agricultural lands and gardens provides no definite solution as areas previously decontaminated are already being re-polluted by groundwater and through migration of soil from mountain slopes and forests –areas so vast they can never be thoroughly cleaned.

http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2015/01/...ukushima/?_ga=1.20338751.641275452.1423525707

The impact of the Fukushima meltdown in the surrounding villages is already obvious with abandoned homes and gardens already falling into decay. Around 150,000 people will not able to return to their homes for years to come and some will never be able to return at all.

 

[Long Live HFC]

you're a cretin.

 

[Qsaint]

http://www.theleadsouthaustralia.co...l-wind-power-to-australian-capital-territory/

Just a couple of years to get 1 third of the power. Going nuclear would take a couple of decades and a serious threat for thousands of years.

Really is a no brainer.

You do realise this is rubbish, none of the power actually bought be ACT from SA actually get there? It a left over of NEMCO trading system which means you can buy power that actually physically won't get to you. FYI power degrades over distance and is pretty uneconomic after 400KMs. Nuclear will provide base load power, wind can not.

 

[CountryRace]

from pretend radiation?



http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/

For some reason

Plastic
General poulltion
Climate change

Whatever the reason, I doubt the nuclear disaster is beneficial to sea life. It's pretty widely documented fish as dying in unnaturally large numbers

 

[little graham]

You do realise this is rubbish.

I do realize that what you post is. Are you saying that this development could be done cheaper quicker and safer by a nuke?

 

[pokerspiv]

http://fukushimaupdate.com/worker-dies-at-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-plant/

4 decades is along time for a basic mistake by American engineers who ignored history and didn't build a sea wall or allow for the possibility power would be cut to the area. This will cost billions as well as have a massive carbon footprint.

Pretty stupid thing to say. The designers had learned the lessons of history and they did build a sea wall designed to withstand Tsunamis.

The issue was that the Earthquake that caused the Fukushima Tsunami was the strongest Earthquake ever recorded in the sea of Japan, and one of the biggest ever recorded on Earth.

And even despite a once in a millenia natural disaster, only 2 people died as a result of the Fukushima meltdown. Which is less than the number of people who die driving to work in Melbourne every week.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Pretty stupid thing to say. The designers had learned the lessons of history and they did build a sea wall designed to withstand Tsunamis.

The issue was that the Earthquake that caused the Fukushima Tsunami was the strongest Earthquake ever recorded in the sea of Japan, and one of the biggest ever recorded on Earth.

And even despite a once in a millenia natural disaster, only 2 people died as a result of the Fukushima meltdown. Which is less than the number of people who die driving to work in Melbourne every week.

To be accurate, a review of safety standards and vulnerabilities at the plant found gross breaches of tepcos own guidelines and also recommended reinforcing and increased height for the wall.

Nuclear power is an option only if cost is not prohibitive. One of the most heavily subsidised industries in the world.

Most costings that people cite do not include the costs of waste management and insurance. Insurance costs can be prohibitive and are usually born by the state

 

[pokerspiv]

The cost of regulation is a significant factor too. New nuclear technologies will likely see it become the standard method of power generation within our lifetime. Australia is perfectly suited to nuclear - we have plenty of uranium, Australia is the most geologically stable continent on Earth so no Earthquakes or Tsunamis to worry about, and we have plenty of desert which is currently used for nothing which would make a perfectly good place for waste storage. In fact it's pretty silly that we aren't already storing waste for countries that do have nuclear programs.

The main reason we don't have nuclear yet is simply that coal is cheaper.

 

[SEN_Fan]

Need water for waste storage so middle of the desert is not an ideal place.

 

[Play by Numbers]

The cost of regulation is a significant factor too. New nuclear technologies will likely see it become the standard method of power generation within our lifetime. Australia is perfectly suited to nuclear - we have plenty of uranium, Australia is the most geologically stable continent on Earth so no Earthquakes or Tsunamis to worry about, and we have plenty of desert which is currently used for nothing which would make a perfectly good place for waste storage. In fact it's pretty silly that we aren't already storing waste for countries that do have nuclear programs.

The main reason we don't have nuclear yet is simply that coal is cheaper.

I don't think it will. Massive gains would need to be made.

Gas is far cheaper and abundant.

Many EU countries, most notably Germany are soso on nuclear.

Likewise Japan is still in political no mans land whether to restart any or some reactors. Abe is pro nuclear, but could implode at any time.

Nuclear needs a lower cost transformative option to make gains. Plenty of promise, but is one accident away from being a political no go zone. Whether wrong or right public sentiment will prevent it

 

[madmug]

I don't think it will. Massive gains would need to be made.

Gas is far cheaper and abundant.

Many EU countries, most notably Germany are soso on nuclear.

Likewise Japan is still in political no mans land whether to restart any or some reactors. Abe is pro nuclear, but could implode at any time.

Nuclear needs a lower cost transformative option to make gains. Plenty of promise, but is one accident away from being a political no go zone. Whether wrong or right public sentiment will prevent it

I agree. Although I am not 'anti' nuclear, I just dont see the value for Australia. The cost/risks are high. Putting all your power 'eggs in one basket' is not a sound strategy.

We have a huge capacity for renewable power generation. Solar/wind/hydro/wave technology,(also ethanol, bio diesel) etc are perfect for this country. Its just a pity the Libs have 'decided' that people will support the dirty coal industry.

I guess at least we have 100% renewable via Hydro power so we get the cleanest power down here.

 

[Contra Mundum]

The cost of regulation is a significant factor too. New nuclear technologies will likely see it become the standard method of power generation within our lifetime. Australia is perfectly suited to nuclear - we have plenty of uranium, Australia is the most geologically stable continent on Earth so no Earthquakes or Tsunamis to worry about, and we have plenty of desert which is currently used for nothing which would make a perfectly good place for waste storage. In fact it's pretty silly that we aren't already storing waste for countries that do have nuclear programs.

The main reason we don't have nuclear yet is simply that coal is cheaper.

Thorium Baby - Thorium

 

[Play by Numbers]

Thorium Baby - Thorium

One day in the distant future

 

[Taylor]

Need water for waste storage so middle of the desert is not an ideal place.

If they pay for it to be stored here, they can pay for the water pump.

The Ord river pumps a lot of water into the ocean, this storage facility could subsidise the cost of pumping the Ord water to Perth and any other irrigation projects along the way.

The train line between the Port and the storage facility would be the most dangerous part of the trip, very hard to protect 800km of rail line from protestors who might seek to make a point by creating a radiation disaster.

 

[Admiral Byng]

If they pay for it to be stored here, they can pay for the water pump.

The Ord river pumps a lot of water into the ocean, this storage facility could subsidise the cost of pumping the Ord water to Perth and any other irrigation projects along the way.

The train line between the Port and the storage facility would be the most dangerous part of the trip, very hard to protect 800km of rail line from protestors who might seek to make a point by creating a radiation disaster.

Still be cheaper to build a nuclear reactor somewhere on the coast between Kalbarri and Margaret River (say City Beach for the sake of argument) and use the energy to desalinate sea water during the off peak, and electricity into the grid during the peak.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Thorium Baby - Thorium

Pebble bed type get my vote.

 

[little graham]

As a result, the plant generates a third of the city’s energy without polluting the air. The city's remaining energy is supplied by wind turbines, solar panels, and hydropower plants. According to an article by TriplePundit.Com, Burlington is a great example for other cities to look at when planning energy operations. The article says, “The fact that Burlington has been able to do this without raising rates since 2009 — while saving the city about $20 million over the next 20 years — creates a case study for communities that are interested in investing in renewables but skittish about making such an aggressive move."

“What Burlington’s done could be replicated elsewhere — it’s not some quirk of geography or weather that got the city to where it is now. There’s nothing magic about Burlington in terms of where it sits. It’s not a lot windier here, or a lot more rivers here, and certainly not a lot sunnier here than lots of parts of the U.S. It was just a bunch of decisions made over ten years or more, to get towards renewable energy.”

http://www.ora.tv/offthegrid/article/grid-city-powered-renewables

 

[Taylor]

Does their government subsidise the power generation, ie buying back to the grid at a healthy level?

 

[Bender571]

http://www.ora.tv/offthegrid/article/grid-city-powered-renewables

"As a result" is a weird way to start a paragraph, I wonder if there was something before it?

Thirty years ago, the city purchased the Joseph C. McNeil Generating Station, which runs off biofuel from burning wood, a green alternative to coal.

How much wood?

At full load, approximately 76 tons of wood chips are consumed per hour (about 30 cords). When the plant is operating at full load on gas, it uses 550,000 cubic feet of gas per hour.

That's a lot of wood for a population of 42,000, I wouldn't want to scale it up to country size.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/vermont-city-come-rely-100-percent-renewable-energy/

Here’s how they do it: about a third of Burlington’s renewable energy is produced at this biomass facility. Biomass is just a fancy word for something that gets burned to produce energy — in this case, they haul in wood from across Vermont, use the heat to make steam, and thus generate electricity.***
So that’s about 35% of Burlington’s production.

Another 20% or so is sourced from wind turbines like these on the hills of a neighboring town, and solar arrays like this one at the airport add another small amount to their total. But the biggest portion of the city’s renewable production comes from hydropower… some they source from other places, like this older hydroelectric dam in Maine, some they produce at their own plant on the Winooski river.

Water pressure from the river spins big underground turbines, which in turn generates electricity.

All this is what accounts for the city’s ability to produce as much energy from renewables as it uses in a year.

So the large majority of their power comes from burning wood and Hydro two states over and it's still not enough to be self sufficient, they still have to buy power from neighbours

**Editor’s note: This video and transcript was updated on Feb. 11, 2015 to remove a reference to the wood being burned at the Burlington biomass facility as being “scrap” wood, and a reference to its smokestack emissions being “just water vapor.” Here’s why: after our initial broadcast, many viewers correctly pointed out that it’s not only “scrap” wood that’s burned (some trees are also specifically logged), and it’s not just the very visible water vapor that’s being emitted (several additional pollutants are also released from this and other biomass facilities over the course of a year). These viewers argued we were giving an overstated impression of the environmental attributes of the plant, and we agree, so we took out those two specific references.

 

[Long Live HFC]

At full load, approximately 76 tons of wood chips are consumed per hour

jesus christ. the 'green alternative'?

 

[Qsaint]

New gen reactors don't use water

Need water for waste storage so middle of the desert is not an ideal place.

 

[Qsaint]

N

One day in the distant future

not really it can almost be done now, it has been sustained in research reactors. A minute amount or uranium reacting constantly keeps the reaction in the thorium going. India asked us to help to try to build one as India and Australia pretty much have all the known thorium

 

[Qsaint]

I don't think it will. Massive gains would need to be made.

Gas is far cheaper and abundant.

Many EU countries, most notably Germany are soso on nuclear.

Likewise Japan is still in political no mans land whether to restart any or some reactors. Abe is pro nuclear, but could implode at any time.

Nuclear needs a lower cost transformative option to make gains. Plenty of promise, but is one accident away from being a political no go zone. Whether wrong or right public sentiment will prevent it

That's because Germany and Italy for that matter get there nuclear power from France. Not sure I'd want to rely on Putin for gas that s why Europe buying a lot more csg and other gas from Australia. Which probably not much cheaper than nuclear

 

[little graham]

Lots of right wing paranoia and properganada in here.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4182771.htm

We don't know the exact situation in detail. Fuel has been melted down, but nobody has seen it. We need to develop technology with help from around the world to know the real situation.

Interesting story on fukishima.

Key points

- the equipment required to stop 3 meltdowns has not been invented yet.
- 1800 deaths so far
- 120 thousand refugees
- estimated to take centuries to stop the 3 meltdowns.
- thousands of liters of water pumped in every day leaks out.
- 4 years and nothings changed with reactor 1 2 and 3
- only tactic is to pump water in to keep them cool
- Over 1000 tanks on site full of radioactive water, running out of room to store.
- no ones agreed to take the excess water
- noone will live there again for thousands of years.