Lets talk about Nukes

Remove this Banner Ad

Doctor Jolly

Premiership Player
Suspended
Sep 28, 2006
4,530
238
sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
I have no problem what so ever in building any number of NPS along the eastern states sea board.

Would be very beneficial for all Australians :thumbsu:
Next to your place ?

Nukes need massive amounts of water, which means in Australia they need to located on the coast. Probably near major cities to reduce transmission losses.
... where all the nice, popular beaches are.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Daytripper

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 9, 2003
15,666
828
Reebok Stadium
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Bolton,Clippers,Falcons,Mariners
Next to your place ?

Nukes need massive amounts of water, which means in Australia they need to located on the coast. Probably near major cities to reduce transmission losses.
... where all the nice, popular beaches are.
Most of Europe seems to cope just fine and not all of them have as much access to as much water as we do.

Hungary has got 4 nuclear power plants and its land-locked !!!!!

You might have to try another argument.
 

Chops_a_must

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 20, 2008
11,972
119
The Terrortory!
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Uni Rats! Believeburgh
Most of Europe seems to cope just fine and not all of them have as much access to as much water as we do.

Hungary has got 4 nuclear power plants and its land-locked !!!!!

You might have to try another argument.
Yep, because that's just what power plants need - salt water. :thumbsu:


The only viable place would be in Melbourne. Every where else in Australia would be in deficit of fresh water, not have a critical mass, or have access to other cheap fuels.
 

ralphmalph

Club Legend
Jul 24, 2004
1,973
717
milwaukee
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton

Doctor Jolly

Premiership Player
Suspended
Sep 28, 2006
4,530
238
sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Most of Europe seems to cope just fine and not all of them have as much access to as much water as we do.

Hungary has got 4 nuclear power plants and its land-locked !!!!!

You might have to try another argument.

Ahh, it rains a bit more in Hungary.


Basically, if you think global warming is bs (like Abbott) there is no need at all to go to nukes. Coal is 3 times cheaper, and we have tones of it.

We'd only go Nuke in response to climate change.
 

PottSie2

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
6,598
1,113
Victoria
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Ahh, it rains a bit more in Hungary.


Basically, if you think global warming is bs (like Abbott) there is no need at all to go to nukes. Coal is 3 times cheaper, and we have tones of it.

We'd only go Nuke in response to climate change.
I don't believe Climate Change is crap, we know the climate has changed many times in the Earth's history.

What's debatable is whether it's man causing it or not. That's where Tony and a lot of people sit.

What's also debatable is whether our cuts will make at difference at all to AGW or not. Actually that's probably not debatable, it won't.
 

bombermick

Norm Smith Medallist
May 28, 2009
9,737
1,185
Vermont South
AFL Club
Essendon
I love the bloke from Greenpeace saying nuclear is "not a response to climate change." What would be a solution to climate change? Wind and solar, neither which have given any indication that provide base load power at a reasonable price? Good on Labor for at least investigating the possibility of nuclear. The coaltion wouldn't block it, as Howard wanted to explore nuclear power towards the end of his last term.

Now we should be looking at the practicalities of getting nuclear in order to reduce greenhouse gases, as well as ensuring our electricity prices don't continue to skyrocket.
 

Doctor Jolly

Premiership Player
Suspended
Sep 28, 2006
4,530
238
sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
I love the bloke from Greenpeace saying nuclear is "not a response to climate change." What would be a solution to climate change? Wind and solar, neither which have given any indication that provide base load power at a reasonable price? Good on Labor for at least investigating the possibility of nuclear. The coaltion wouldn't block it, as Howard wanted to explore nuclear power towards the end of his last term.
We have an oversupply of base load power already.

Now we should be looking at the practicalities of getting nuclear in order to reduce greenhouse gases, as well as ensuring our electricity prices don't continue to skyrocket.
Why are electricity prices going up? Because billions are being spent on transmission upgrades, nothing to do with renewables as we havent even set a carbon price yet.

Building nukes (much more expensive than coal plant) plus new transmission will put pressure on prices.
 

Doctor Jolly

Premiership Player
Suspended
Sep 28, 2006
4,530
238
sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
I don't believe Climate Change is crap, we know the climate has changed many times in the Earth's history.

What's debatable is whether it's man causing it or not. That's where Tony and a lot of people sit.

What's also debatable is whether our cuts will make at difference at all to AGW or not. Actually that's probably not debatable, it won't.
Ok, if we arent causing it, then we should burn coal till the cows come home. Nukes is totally off the radar.

Which makes the liberals policy of pro-nukes economic madness. Why build expensive, dangerous nukes, when coal has not environmental impact ?
 

bombermick

Norm Smith Medallist
May 28, 2009
9,737
1,185
Vermont South
AFL Club
Essendon
Ok, if we arent causing it, then we should burn coal till the cows come home. Nukes is totally off the radar.

Which makes the liberals policy of pro-nukes economic madness. Why build expensive, dangerous nukes, when coal has not environmental impact ?
Because there are many people in the Liberal party who believe burning coal does have an environmental impact. Just like there's obviously people within the Labor party who don't all believe nuclear comes from the devil.

We do have an oversupply of base-load power, but that's mainly brown coal which we're trying to phase out. Lots of money has been invested in solar and wind and that has helped to drive prices up.

Nuclear costs a lot of money to build, but after that the power is cheap and it doesn't emit co2. Sounds like a winner. We are the world's largest holder of uranium after all.

Let's see if the practical men and women inside the Labor party, who don't mind the idea of nuclear power, will stand up to the green ideologues within their own party and in the Greens. Will Julia step up to the plate, or are we going to spend the next 3 years talking about gay marriage?
 

Doctor Jolly

Premiership Player
Suspended
Sep 28, 2006
4,530
238
sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Because there are many people in the Liberal party who believe burning coal does have an environmental impact. Just like there's obviously people within the Labor party who don't all believe nuclear comes from the devil.

We do have an oversupply of base-load power, but that's mainly brown coal which we're trying to phase out. Lots of money has been invested in solar and wind and that has helped to drive prices up.

Nuclear costs a lot of money to build, but after that the power is cheap and it doesn't emit co2. Sounds like a winner. We are the world's largest holder of uranium after all.
Nuclear is about 3x the cost of coal over the life of the power plant. And that doesnt include the ongoing cost of waste disposal (or for that matter co2 mitigation of coal).

So it would seem both parties are compromised on Nukes.
For libs, its either economic madness, or global warming is man made.
For labour, it contradicts years of anti-nuke policy, but is a global warming solution.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bombermick

Norm Smith Medallist
May 28, 2009
9,737
1,185
Vermont South
AFL Club
Essendon
Nuclear is about 3x the cost of coal over the life of the power plant. And that doesnt include the ongoing cost of waste disposal (or for that matter co2 mitigation of coal).

So it would seem both parties are compromised on Nukes.
For libs, its either economic madness, or global warming is man made.
For labour, it contradicts years of anti-nuke policy, but is a global warming solution.
Sure, coal is cheaper but if we all agree that coal is too dirty (most agree), than nuclear is the next cheapest option that provides base load power. Whether the libs or Labor are compromising their beliefs ... I don't really care. What I care about is getting a safe, clean and economical source of power. Power bills here in Victoria are skyrocketing and will probably only get worse if a carbon price is introduced.
 

Doctor Jolly

Premiership Player
Suspended
Sep 28, 2006
4,530
238
sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Sure, coal is cheaper but if we all agree that coal is too dirty (most agree), than nuclear is the next cheapest option that provides base load power. Whether the libs or Labor are compromising their beliefs ... I don't really care. What I care about is getting a safe, clean and economical source of power. Power bills here in Victoria are skyrocketing and will probably only get worse if a carbon price is introduced.
Thats the point. If you build expensive new plants (nukes), your power bills will really skyrocket.

Nukes are about the same price point as wind at the moment.
 

bombermick

Norm Smith Medallist
May 28, 2009
9,737
1,185
Vermont South
AFL Club
Essendon
Thats the point. If you build expensive new plants (nukes), your power bills will really skyrocket.

Nukes are about the same price point as wind at the moment.
Wind and solar each cost about 6x as much as coal. I don't think nuclear is that expensive, and it will be made artificially cheaper if we get a carbon price. I simply want to have the debate, it's far better than Labor's old attitude of nuclear is evil.
 

ralphmalph

Club Legend
Jul 24, 2004
1,973
717
milwaukee
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
Thats the point. If you build expensive new plants (nukes), your power bills will really skyrocket.

Nukes are about the same price point as wind at the moment.
Not sure about that Dr J. I think it is only partly true and appears to change if/when a price on carbon is introduced.

Have a read of this article:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/11/30/the-arithmetic-adds-up-to-nuclear/#more-3476

The stand-out technology, from a cost perspective, is nuclear power. From the eight nuclear cost studies we reviewed (all published in the last decade, and adjusted to 2009 dollars), the median cost of electricity from current technology nuclear plants was just above new coal plants with no carbon price. Having the lowest carbon emissions of all the fit-for-service technologies, nuclear remains the cheapest solution at any carbon price. Importantly, it is the only fit-for-service baseload technology that can deliver the 2050 emission reduction targets.

The low cost for nuclear electricity may surprise some. Nuclear plants are renowned for being very expensive to build. But electricity costs are a function of construction costs, running costs (operations, maintenance and fuel) and the total energy generated over the plant’s lifetime. Nuclear fuel costs are relatively low compared to coal or gas (very little fuel is used in a nuclear plant) and these plants typically have a long life and high availability. These factors lead to a low electricity cost over the nuclear plant’s lifetime.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/11/30/the-arithmetic-adds-up-to-nuclear/#more-3476
 

ralphmalph

Club Legend
Jul 24, 2004
1,973
717
milwaukee
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
I suspect, like climate change, the blogosphere will hide any semblence of the truth about the true costs.

Ive read that nukes are around 6c/kwh, about the same as wind.

This article claims much higher: (14c)

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=208

Your article claims much lower.

Who knows the real figure.
Fair enough - I'm not going to get into a 'my expert is better than yours' argument. But if you haven't read Barry Brook's stuff before, he's no climate change skeptic or denialist, in fact he used to use his blog to argue against what he saw as misrepresentations from one side of the argument - http://bravenewclimate.com/spot-the-recycled-denial-series/. Then he came to the conclusion that that fight is never ending and moved on to focussing on finding solutions or at least identifying possible action. He appears to have settled on nuke as the only short term option and does not appear to have done so for political 'wedging' purposes.

Anyway, my apologies if I'm telling you stuff you already know. If not, have a browse around his site. It's interesting stuff.

And it shows that the 'debate' some say they want to have is already going on, if you really want to get into it rather than just bring it up for political reasons. I doubt that a parliamentary debate would be more informative.
 

Caesar

Ex-Huckleberry
Mar 3, 2005
27,103
12,852
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I have no hand-wringing eco-objections to nuclear power, but I am not really a fan of current generation nuclear - it's old technology. A few decades ago? Sure. Now? Not so keen.

Nuclear looks great when it's placed beside the primitive renewable options currently available, but that's not saying a whole lot. Long lead times and expensive commissioning compared to their limited lives add up to something that just isn't that attractive compared to current coal-fired systems. If your only objective is slashing domestic emissions as quick as possible, current-generation nuclear is by far the best option available. But given uranium reserves and current efficiency levels it's not going to provide a global solution to climate change, which begs the question - why bother?

We have massive coal and gas reserves, and our emissions are miniscule compared to the rest of the world. I really don't see what is so taboo about us just sticking with fossil fuels until the next quantum leap in atomic energy comes along.
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 18, 2003
16,498
2,741
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
Good thread.

Firstly I think we should be immediately agreeing to export uranium to India and any other democratic country that wants it.

Secondly, I think we should build more coal fired plants and exploit the coal we have for our energy needs, which is the cheapest, I understand.

Thirdly, I think nuke power plants should be ruled out until such time the Greens and the climate change believers sign up to them at which point I will believe that they believe what they say about planet being doomed becos of carbon emissions.
 

midorigreenwood

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 30, 2006
8,270
2,244
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
But given uranium reserves and current efficiency levels it's not going to provide a global solution to climate change, which begs the question - why bother?
because according to the academic literature...... its by far the most cost effective option when looking at proven base load technologies.

if we're serious about reducing carbon emissions, the choice is clear

from ralphmalph's site

The results of this survey represent the scientific/engineering/economic consensus of the world-wide, authoritative, peer-reviewed energy literature. Given the importance of reducing electricity generator emission, and the economic imperative to keep electricity costs at a minimum, it seems essential that the Australian government rethink its nuclear power strategy, as much of the rest of the world has already done. All the arithmetic adds up to nuclear.
We have massive coal and gas reserves, and our emissions are miniscule compared to the rest of the world. I really don't see what is so taboo about us just sticking with fossil fuels until the next quantum leap in atomic energy comes along.
thats probably what will happen....carbon tax or not...

there is too much FUD about nuclear power that is ingrained in the public psyche.....
 

Caesar

Ex-Huckleberry
Mar 3, 2005
27,103
12,852
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
because according to the academic literature...... its by far the most cost effective option when looking at proven base load technologies.
Well no. Put emissions reduction aside for a moment - coal is by far the most cost effective base load option for Australia.

if we're serious about reducing carbon emissions, the choice is clear
Hang on a second, if who is serious about reducing carbon emissions? The world as a whole? Nuclear is not a viable option, if everyone switched to current generation nuclear tomorrow we would reach peak uranium quicker than we are currently due to reach peak coal.

If you're just talking about Australia reducing carbon emissions, I have to ask why you're putting the cart before the horse. Austalia drastically cutting emissions is worthless without the rest of the world doing it as well, and for that to happen we need a global multilateral agreement and a universal solution to base-load power. Currently we have neither.
 

midorigreenwood

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 30, 2006
8,270
2,244
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Well no. Coal is by far the most cost effective base load option.
obviously the context was with regards to technologies that reduce carbon emissions....


Hang on a second, if who is serious about reducing carbon emissions? The world as a whole? Nuclear is not a viable option, if everyone switched to current generation nuclear tomorrow we would reach peak uranium quicker than we are currently due to reach peak coal.
Australia and the world aren't being serious

hence the "IF" in my post

uranium can be recycled through the life cycle

there are other fuel options too
 

Remove this Banner Ad