- Thread starter
- Banned
- #51
Check out the new movie Gasland.
Lets talk about Nukes
- Thread starter Doctor Jolly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Check out the new movie Gasland.
Dagger5
Norm Smith Medallist
I am all for nuclear power in the future. Right now its not needed but in 10-15 years then they should start replacing our coal powerplants on the Eastern seaboard. Modern nuclear powerplants are very safe if operated properly and we have an abundance of uranium so supply is not an issue.
We have a nuclear power industry. Its just that we export 100% of it, in the most efficient form.
Much more efficient to export uranium than brown coal.
Yo also have to factor that coal carbon technology could improve in the timeframe it takes to develop a domestic nuclear capability.
Also bear in mind that solar is essentially nuclear.
Funny how politically, TA looked happy when he predicted the alp would tear apart over nuclear - yet the lubs had differing opinions but didnt tear apart ?
In fact, the opposition hahs afforded itself the luxury of each person holding whatever policies they like
Much more efficient to export uranium than brown coal.
Yo also have to factor that coal carbon technology could improve in the timeframe it takes to develop a domestic nuclear capability.
Also bear in mind that solar is essentially nuclear.
Funny how politically, TA looked happy when he predicted the alp would tear apart over nuclear - yet the lubs had differing opinions but didnt tear apart ?
In fact, the opposition hahs afforded itself the luxury of each person holding whatever policies they like
Eastern Rangers
2015 Worsfold Medalist - Rowen Powell
By Current generation you mean all large fith generation fast breeder reactors?
Sixth Generation reactors like the Pebble Bed Reactors, Molten Salt Reactors, ADS Thorium Reactors all look pretty impressive.
If the Government was smart they would go after sub critical reactors if any.
Eastern Rangers
2015 Worsfold Medalist - Rowen Powell
No it's still an issue. U 235 is rare and expensive.
Yeah. There is. Pumping sulphur into the upper atmosphere continuously or nuking a volcano.
Sydney and SEQ have access to cheap gas and coal.
Melbourne has access to nothing when it boils down to it.
Adelaide, Darwin and Perth have access to geotherm. Darwin and Perth have access to cheap gas.
Geothermal is an option if we can get the exploration happening in Australia. The technology is proven, but it is locationally dependent. Which leaves Melbourne as the logical option for Nuclear.
not really, as qsaint mentioned..... there is no real incentive to search for more
if push comes to shove and we're forced to use seawater, increasing production cost maybe 10 fold....
because nuclear reactors need relatively less fuel than fossil fuel power plants, the burden to consumers will be bearable.
anyways, its a huge furphy....
the nuclear waste from gen 3 reactors is not really waste...... it can be reprocessed or stored for use when gen 4 reactors become widespread.
not to mention an alternative like Thorium
nuclear fission is the only choice we have at the moment that can be quickly rolled out for the next 50 years to supplant further fossil fuel use.
By then, the chances are a better choice will be avaliable
if the public can't accept this..... we might as well give up and just adapt to whatever happens.
its ironic that the major barrier to widespread acceptance of nuclear power is not the cost or scarcity of Uranium...but the FUD that is spread by environmentalists.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #60
Its pretty silly to just dismiss the environmental concerns. 4th gen reactors arent here yet, so no guarantee they will use the waste, and the big thorium push by India (which has tones of the stuff) has died off. Thorium is a long, long way away, if at all.
The problem with Nuclear is that the place where the waste is stored, and site of the reactor are unusable "forever" (in human terms). Thats a massive commitment to declare a part of the planet unusable for ever.
With all other forms of industry, the land is able to recover given enough time (and/or money).
because we don't have enough piping to carry gas from where its being produced to where its actually needed. It would cost too much.
As soon as the fast breeder reactors hit its not just that they need less uranium, its also that they can use U238 which is 99% of the worlds uranium and thus we'd never run out
- Banned
- #62
uhh, what?
Just as it's pretty silly to dismiss base load issues renewable energy.
We'd need a pretty hefty combination of solar, geo, tidal and wind, so what's the answer to baseload power for the renewable fans ?
Gas ?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #64
Well for a start, we have excess baseload capacity in Australia, so we could go to 10% unreliable renewables without any effect. Some big consumers like desalination plants are fine to only run when the sun shines. They produce fresh water then for consumption, and the dam stays full. At night, use the dam water.
Geothermal is base load. That, IMO, is where we should be pouring our money into.
Molten salt thermal solar plants are near-base load. By near I mean you get a good day's warning if power is dropping.
A widely distributed solar installation (many small nodes like roof top solar) is also more tolerant of localized weather.
Black coal and Gas will always be around. I cant see any need to reduce coal dependence below 50% of what it is now.
Similar threads
