Politics Should Australia go nuclear?

[CountryRace]

This is why we require a Norway system where people get some money , too

 

[little graham]

On one hand the nuclear industry is destroying/poisoning the pacific ocean with radioactive water.

On the other hand the solar industry is recycling preserving and preventing water being poisoned.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-05/australian-first-floating-solar-farm-for-sa/6281374?section=sa

She also explained that as the solar panels were floating they would be kept cool by the water mass, making them about 57 per cent more efficient than land-based solar panels."It prevents water evaporation up to 90 per cent of the surface area covered, and for dry states and dry climates that's a big water saving measure," Ms Whiting said. "It prevents the outbreak of blue-green algae by keeping the surface water cool, which is for treated wastewater an issue in water quality.

Ms Whiting said that once operational, the plant would become Infratech's showpiece for export around the world.
"We've invested our whole research and development program in this technology over the past two years in South Australia," she said.
"We have other councils waiting to have a look at this and see how it might be adapted to a water basin or a community wastewater management scheme."We are using Australian engineering and it's an Australian supply chain – that will be taken internationally."

For a former soldier Power Raid, what you're doing,by pushing the barrow of capitalists who won't have to live with nuclear when it goes wrong, is a form of treason to the people you served.

 

[Power Raid]

On one hand the nuclear industry is destroying/poisoning the pacific ocean with radioactive water.

On the other hand the solar industry is recycling preserving and preventing water being poisoned.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-05/australian-first-floating-solar-farm-for-sa/6281374?section=sa





For a former soldier Power Raid, what you're doing,by pushing the barrow of capitalists who won't have to live with nuclear when it goes wrong, is a form of treason to the people you served.

Interesting comment given I have commissioned a study to buy a gas power plant in Botswana with a view to support an expansion in solar. The goal is to eradicate brown outs in Botswana and reverse the power grid to supply South Africa. So is capitalism limited to nuclear power and not solar?

By the way, I will never build a nuclear power station so my views are simply based on observations of what is happening globally. I guess you can take a blanket view and believe one solution fits all jurisdictions and you could also take ideas like nuclear off the drawing board based on principle. but that would be a little silly wouldn't it?

 

[Lebbo73]

On one hand the nuclear industry is destroying/poisoning the pacific ocean with radioactive water.

On the other hand the solar industry is recycling preserving and preventing water being poisoned.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-05/australian-first-floating-solar-farm-for-sa/6281374?section=sa





For a former soldier Power Raid, what you're doing,by pushing the barrow of capitalists who won't have to live with nuclear when it goes wrong, is a form of treason to the people you served.

Old nuclear reactors are the problem. However, I would not use nuclear power until we can find a way to not produce radioactive waste.

 

[little graham]

An American company designed and built Fukushima. One of those things Japan had to accept after losing the war. Where is that American company now? Fukushima was a result of basic design flaw of thiers.. As posted, we have yet to design the technology to stop a disaster there.

If they get another Tsunami, s**t gets really real for the whole world. We don't know yet, if it will take 4 or 400 hundred decades to avert a disaster.

They say with global warming, we'll get more earth quakes, bigger storms ect. I don't know whats more stupid, making a case for whats happening in Gaza, or nuclear power.

 

[Lester Burnham]

They say with global warming, we'll get more earth quakes, bigger storms ect. I don't know whats more stupid, making a case for whats happening in Gaza, or nuclear power.

LOL

 

[Power Raid]

An American company designed and built Fukushima. One of those things Japan had to accept after losing the war. Where is that American company now? Fukushima was a result of basic design flaw of thiers.. As posted, we have yet to design the technology to stop a disaster there.

If they get another Tsunami, s**t gets really real for the whole world. We don't know yet, if it will take 4 or 400 hundred decades to avert a disaster.

They say with global warming, we'll get more earth quakes, bigger storms ect. I don't know whats more stupid, making a case for whats happening in Gaza, or nuclear power.

There is so many issues with this post it is difficult to start
1) it was built in the 60s and the design flaw solution you refer to had not been invented at the time
2) General Electric is still in existence and if TEPCO or Japan feel GE are responsible, they can make a claim
3) Are you suggesting we should not build 1960s reactors? if so, I agree
4) more earth quakes from global warming? really?
5) Fukushima is not good for the nuclear power industry but compare the safety record of nuclear power (including three mile and chernobyl) to other power generation technologies and it is one of the safest. It is even better when you take out plutonium bomb generators dressed up as power stations (three mile and chernobyl).

Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)


Based on safety it is hard to go past nuclear given the performance of old technology and the fact that gen 3.5+ is designed to take a direct hit from a fully laden 747 without incurring damage to the core and gen 4 is safer again.

Based on price gen 3.5+ is competitive with other base load generators but gen 4 is in a league of its own

Based on pollution nuclear is by far the cleanest with a closed system and gen 4 has the capacity to burn the waste of gen 3.5+ and below.


safety - tick, price - tick, reliability - tick, base load - tick and environment - tick. I can see many 100, possibly more than a 1,000, reactors being built globally over the next 35 years for that reason.

 

[Power Raid]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/F...lear-Power-Reactors-and-Uranium-Requirements/

Reactors under construction and planned
China - 90 reactors
India - 28 reactors
Russia - 40 reactors
Japan - 12 reactors
US - 10 reactors

 

[IschenkoUBeauty]

Nu-cul-er. It's pronounced nu-cul-er.

 

[Norwegian Blue]

They say with global warming, we'll get more earth quakes

Every time I think we've plumbed the depths of LG's stupidity, he finds another shovel and keeps digging.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

On one hand the nuclear industry is destroying/poisoning the pacific ocean with radioactive water.

On the other hand the solar industry is recycling preserving and preventing water being poisoned.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-05/australian-first-floating-solar-farm-for-sa/6281374?section=sa

For a former soldier Power Raid, what you're doing,by pushing the barrow of capitalists who won't have to live with nuclear when it goes wrong, is a form of treason to the people you served.

Huh? the PV industry produced thousands of tonnes of toxic sludge at the input and production side each year and on the flip side disposal of PV technology is haphazard at best, doing not a lot better than the computer technology industry.

Given the regulation and money involved isn't the nuclear industry potentially the least capitalist of all energy sources?

 

[little graham]

Within days, TEPCO headquarters is demanding to have its workforce cut their losses and abandon the plant. They have a point: their staff on-site are suffering terrible radiation exposures as they improvise to keep the cores immersed in seawater that churns through the wrecked complex as fast as they can pump it in. Continued aftershocks threaten to ignite the huge bank of spent fuel perched in Unit 4.

On March 15 Prime Minister Naoto Kan storms into TEPCO headquarters and demands they stay on site and get the place back under control. He too has a point: if the utility pulls its staff back and lets the accident run its course, the exposed cores will burn through what remains of the containment structures, releasing uncontrolled amounts of radiation.

It is later revealed that against this possibility, senior officials have briefed the Prime Minister on the logistics of abandoning the northern half of Honshu Island, including Greater Tokyo, population 30 million.

”It was a crucial moment when I wasn’t sure whether Japan could continue to function as a state,”

For something we don't need.

Psychopaths.
http://fieldnotes.org.au/2012/08/24/at-the-end-of-the-world/

The workers today are harvesting caesium-137, half-life 30 years. They’re carefully stripping the top 50 cm of soil from the abandoned field, dumping it in neat windrows wrapped in blue plastic. Our counters silently log a gamma dose of about 3.7 μSv per hour, 13 times the normal background level.

Radiocaesium is found only in the wake of bomb fallout or downwind of failed nuclear reactors. Broken uranium atoms from Kakadu and central South Australia, fissioned under a hail of exquisitely tuned neutron bombardment into uneven fragments of iodine, strontium, xenon. It is everywhere now, invisible, sucked into the pores of the soil itself.

 

[raptalia]

Making the case for building reactors in Japan where they are built directly on the Pacific rim fault line is different from making a case for storing nuclear waste in Central Australia where the seismic activity is nearly zero. In South Australia, which has some of the largest uranium deposits in the world, the debate has re opened about storing nuclear waste. The debate seems pretty evenly balanced atm which is a shift from the past where the South Australian Government won a High Court challenge to Commonwealth proposals to establish a nuclear waste dump in the north of our State. Given our tenuous financial position, embracing a 'nuclear state' ethos is becoming more attractive to many South Australians.

 

[JeffDunne]

It's amusing how the pro-nuclear debate has morphed in recent years from "if the Japanese can build them safely on a fault line" to "you can't compare safety to a reactor built on a fault line".

Almost as ridiculous are people posting comparative mortality rates on energy production when that has nothing to do with the objections people have on the safety of nuclear. The comparative costs on production are equally disingenuous as they too ignore the geopolitical realities and associated costs of having nuclear reactors.

The issue Australia should be debating re nuclear power is Indonesia's move to nuclear power. That could prove disastrous for Australia (not to mention Indonesia).

That alone should be reason enough for us not to go nuclear and again be a leading voice in keeping this part of the world nuclear free.

 

[Power Raid]

It's amusing how the pro-nuclear debate has morphed in recent years from "if the Japanese can build them safely on a fault line" to "you can't compare safety to a reactor built on a fault line".

Almost as ridiculous are people posting comparative mortality rates on energy production when that has nothing to do with the objections people have on the safety of nuclear. The comparative costs on production are equally disingenuous as they too ignore the geopolitical realities and associated costs of having nuclear reactors.

The issue Australia should be debating re nuclear power is Indonesia's move to nuclear power. That could prove disastrous for Australia (not to mention Indonesia).

That alone should be reason enough for us not to go nuclear and again be a leading voice in keeping this part of the world nuclear free.

I wasn't aware anyone debated you could build nuclear reactors safely on a fault. One of the big costs and time costs is the work done on the geo-tech work to select a suitable site.

Why would they go to all that cost to avoid a fault if it wasn't something to avoid?

Further I would have thought the number of health issues including death, per kWhr, was valid when measuring the safety of power generation. Do you suggest the "vibe" is a more appropriate measure?

Yes, I agree that full costs of power generation is an important measure including the indirect costs of industry closing and moving jurisdiction in search of affordable reliable power supply. SA says hi!

and agree, Indonesia should only go nuclear with gen 4 reactors. In my opinion gen 3 or 3.5 would not be appropriate.

 

[Jakko]

Maybe we should vow to wipe Israel off the map to get people onside with a nuclear industry?

 

[little graham]

Today's wind generators are actually much cheaper to build and maintain, and produce cheaper electricity; 60% cheaper in some cases.
It is common sense to suspect that an energy source requiring no fuel would be cheaper than one requiring constant aquisition of fuel. The UK findings provide definitive evidence that this is true.

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/438403701443399680/wind-power-is-now-cheaper-than-nuclear-and-gas

It's a no brainer really.

 

[Power Raid]

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/438403701443399680/wind-power-is-now-cheaper-than-nuclear-and-gas

It's a no brainer really.

it's a shame his numbers are bullshit

I believe solar and wind have an important role to play but I can't understand why "green" nuts feel the need to be so mischievous. Why can't he simply say nuclear is about three times cheaper than wind but there are obvious advantages to having wind?

why would some nut even compare nuclear with wind anyway? they play a very different role in the energy mix.

 

[Pessimistic]

Switowski report found that nuclear is uneconomic without a carbon tax, or direct subsidy

Is that whet the neos want ? I thought this govt had killed those things off

 

[little graham]

. Why can't he simply say nuclear is about three times cheaper than wind b

Because it's bullshit and he's not into bullshit?

200 of the world's 434 nuclear reactors currently in service are due to be decommissioned in the next 25 years. The Agency is concerned both about the cost of phasing out nuclear energy and the absence of technical solutions for dealing with radioactive waste."We don’t yet have a permanent solution to high level nuclear waste," Fatih Birol said. "There are some temporary solutions, but how we are going to dispose of high level nuclear waste is a key issue that remains to be addressed". Europe is home to a large number of the reactors set to be decommissioned; a process the IEA estimates will cost around 100 billion dollars.

Europeans = flogs
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/su...-fuel-subsidies-and-cost-nuclear-power-309986

 

[Qsaint]

Switowski report found that nuclear is uneconomic without a carbon tax, or direct subsidy

Is that whet the neos want ? I thought this govt had killed those things off

Uneconomic vs brown coal but so is everything else

 

[Power Raid]

Because it's bullshit and he's not into bullshit?



Europeans = flogs
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/su...-fuel-subsidies-and-cost-nuclear-power-309986

why would you want a permanent solution for gen 3 waste when it can be used as fuel in a gen 4 reactor?

but we will need permanent storage in 30-50 years and there are already obvious solutions to that

 

[little graham]

but we will need permanent storage in 30-50 years and there are already obvious solutions to that

That website is a few classes above Murdochs efforts, it's quoting an IEA (INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY) report, it's dated 14th November last year. They clearly state we have no technical solutions for nuclear waste.

Why should we believe you?

 

[Power Raid]

That website is a few classes above Murdochs efforts, it's quoting an IEA (INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY) report, it's dated 14th November last year. They clearly state we have no technical solutions for nuclear waste.

Why should we believe you?

you don't have to believe me, you just have to take a look at what is happening


- cooling ponds 20-30 years
- reprocessed to collect vital isotopes and elements for medical purposes
- temporary storage containers on surface

this will either go underground once there is enough demand. after all you wouldn't build a long term solution for a small quantum, and the stuff available today was created pre 1980s which is only 20 years supply.

or more likely, you would put this material through a FBR or a gen IV and re-use.


Why are you against clean, safe, cheap base load with a low CO2 footprint which also feeds our medical and science industries with vital elements?

 

[little graham]

Why are you against clean, safe, cheap base load with a low CO2 footprint which also feeds our medical and science industries with vital elements?

You're so full of s**t your funny. My grammer is fine.

One good wave and Tokyos phuqed and you say nuclear power is safe, lol.