Nuclear power - do we need it?

[Iphido]

I think we need a wide approach:

-Nuclear power 5 power plants on the east cost and a reprocessing facility and a storage facility.
-Also supplimented with plans for gas plants in regional areas.
-Every home should have a 24v circuit with 2xsolar panels ~100w. These can run halogen lighting, water pumps (for rain water) etc.
-Reduction in energy consumption (more efficent insulation mandated, efficent heaters on sale, LCD TV's, efficent fridges)
-Homes process waste with a biocycle system before entering sewage system.

Each suburban home should be near break even for water, waste managment, power generation etc.

This leaves catchments and large power production to commerical and industry as well as high density units which have no chance of being self sufficent.

Also this would allow a small fleet of electric vechicals like electric bikes and some electric cars for city and urban areas.

[39ClevoUte]

And we all stay at home???

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I don't agree doing nothing is better.

Nor do i.

I also dont agree that countries like china should put development ahead of the environment. Although there is some merit to the argument that many of there people need to be brought out of poverty and unfortunately burning lots of carbon is one way to achieve this...



^ this is a satellite photo of china. No - that cloud isnt natural. Yes - Hong Kong does shut down a lot of factories 7 days prior to a dignatory arriving so that he may see the sky over the city.

Is this justified in the name of allowing a developing country to do its thing? Allowing the people to develop, just like our mother land did all those years ago?

I have absolutely no idea!

Even when the central government is trying to clean the country up - it's a freight train well beyond their control.. this was brought up earlier this week:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...y/Science/home

[Redrum]

I am for Nuclear Power. I believe the industry has come a long way. The waste problem is an issue, but otherwise much cleaner than coal. For the next few decades there are no other real alternatives.....

[XRchic]

I wonder if this thread will bring out the forum Emos....hahaha.

[kyro_02]

it's good the way it is let every other country use nuclear power :P

[Polyal]

damn good thread guys, and some good posts too!

Its tough, and there is never a win, win situation I guess. I didn't even know there was an energy issue until the other week, where did all this come from?

If reactors are needed, then how far can they be from urban areas? Alot of Australias land is unhabited, desert, or just plain nasty; im sure a few could be put out where no one is going to live anyway.

What is done with nuclear waste anyway? Im sure if someone could think of a way of using that again to make power we would be set. There has to be something its good for.

I also agree with others, there is only so much wind can do, hydro Im not to sure about, and solar again would need a huge area to get anything meaningful from I would have thought.

what we need, like suggested before, is for individuals to get a bit more pro-active, but the problem there is that it costs alot. And this, IMO, is where the gov needs to step in and start doing something good. If the costs where cheapened, then surely the vast majority of people would install solar panels in there homes if the price wasacceptable.

Its like LPG, if a conversion was only say $500-1000 how many people would do it? Alot more than currently I would think.

Car manuafcturers have been forced to follow emission laws, so perhaps a similar scheme for home owners would work? Every home in Australia should have some sort of renewable energy by 2015? Then fully independant by 2020? Something like that anyway.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Car manuafcturers have been forced to follow emission laws, so perhaps a similar scheme for home owners would work? Every home in Australia should have some sort of renewable energy by 2015? Then fully independant by 2020? Something like that anyway.

Local councils have gone someway to implement such initiatives. A work colleague is currently building a house in a new development just north of Adelaide. Its a requirement to have solar powered hot water systems installed during the build.

[39ClevoUte]

There is heaps you can do at home.....but......some things are done better in bulk and cause a lot less polution in setting up. It's a balance a bit of both is what's needed some previous post have touched on this.

[Disco1986]

wot about the waste? we have central Australia for that, you know that dry sand bit where no one lives! im sure the government could place it thier and transpot it by rail, or road! Go nuclear, its the future!

[Falcon Freak]

As can be seen nuclear power is a polarising subject which is causing much discussion. It is interesting to see what is the collective conscious of AFF.

FF

[Laminge]

Originally Posted by Falcon Freak

As can be seen nuclear power is a polarising subject which is causing much discussion. It is interesting to see what is the collective conscious of AFF.

FF

The poll is irrelevant, the discussion is valid however

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Nor do i.

I also dont agree that countries like china should put development ahead of the environment. Although there is some merit to the argument that many of there people need to be brought out of poverty and unfortunately burning lots of carbon is one way to achieve this...



^ this is a satellite photo of china. No - that cloud isnt natural. Yes - Hong Kong does shut down a lot of factories 7 days prior to a dignatory arriving so that he may see the sky over the city.

Is this justified in the name of allowing a developing country to do its thing? Allowing the people to develop, just like our mother land did all those years ago?

I have absolutely no idea!

Even when the central government is trying to clean the country up - it's a freight train well beyond their control.. this was brought up earlier this week:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...y/Science/home

Not to labor(opps) the point but Mr Howards refusal to sign Kyoto was based on "our own independent assessment of our national interest". Not because developing countries are exempt.
Australia has ban the use of many things, for example organochorine pesticides like DDT and 2,4,5-T, that are still used on a daily basis in other countries (a really good reason to demand Australian produce in your local supermarket!). So personally I cannot accept C02 is any different, it's about money.

I take all your points about China, a little hypocirtical for industrialised countries to tell them "hey your messing the plant up, clean up your act."
It does appear China is planning to use four times more renewable energy than nuclear power.
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/feature...1&news_id=1988

The debate we should be having is how much are we going to spend on renewable power? How much could we earn selling our ideas to other countries? Given that any nuclear power plants built here, Australia will be giving money to another country for the technology. We are a clever country, we could be world leaders in renewable technologies. Not just a place to dig stuff up and I fear a place to bury it once everyone is done with it.

[UNRULY]

I live in the shadows of 3 major victorian coal power stations. I see the polution they pump out, and the massive hole in the ground next to each one. I am all for the possible introduction of a new powerful source of electricity.

Greenpeace were here illegally protesting against Hazelwood power station last year, and I saw them on TV today protesting against nuclear power. Do they realise that the other forms of electricity production will only ever be able to support a major source such as coal or nuclear. What do they want? Us to have huge power shortages in the future? Face facts, modern society has evolved into massive power users, and we need to supply this habit. Why not avoid pumping masses of polution into my back yard doing it.

[charles_wif_xf]

This is gonna sound funny since I am a physicist by trade, but nuclear power generated by the fission (splitting of uranium atoms) in its current form is doomed. This is due simply to the disposal issue of spent fuel and the processing of uranium to enrich it enough to be fuel grade. U-235 is the good stuff and the stuff dug up is U-234 and to enrich a batch of 234 to contain 5% 235 creates a whole heap of useless crap that has to be disposed somewhere. Which brings me to my next point.

We need to change our mentality of the "throwaway society". Simply burying the waste isn't enough because some years down the track, it'll come back and bite us in the ***.

We need to spend the resources which would be devoted to nuclear energy to clean up the coal burners we currently use. Then what needs to happen is some serious R&D money needs to go into researching out of the box energy technologies such as investigating the possibility of extracting energy from the vacuum of space (before I get flamed to pieces, this is one concept which has been proven to exist), alternate forms of nuclear fusion (fusing together two light nuclei such as hydrogen) and so on. That is my 2c worth.

[Falcon Freak]

Originally Posted by charles_wif_xf

This is gonna sound funny since I am a physicist by trade, but nuclear power generated by the fission (splitting of uranium atoms) in its current form is doomed. This is due simply to the disposal issue of spent fuel and the processing of uranium to enrich it enough to be fuel grade. U-235 is the good stuff and the stuff dug up is U-234 and to enrich a batch of 234 to contain 5% 235 creates a whole heap of useless crap that has to be disposed somewhere. Which brings me to my next point.

We need to change our mentality of the "throwaway society". Simply burying the waste isn't enough because some years down the track, it'll come back and bite us in the ***.

We need to spend the resources which would be devoted to nuclear energy to clean up the coal burners we currently use. Then what needs to happen is some serious R&D money needs to go into researching out of the box energy technologies such as investigating the possibility of extracting energy from the vacuum of space (before I get flamed to pieces, this is one concept which has been proven to exist), alternate forms of nuclear fusion (fusing together two light nuclei such as hydrogen) and so on. That is my 2c worth.

What about the alternative nuclear power form - nuclear fusion? Is this a viable option?

FF

[gtfpv]

i get offended when people , call others who dont agree with them . UNEDUCATED .
I BET MAYBE NO ONE ON THIS FORUM IS PROPERLY EDUCATED ON NUCLEAR ENERGY.
therefore maybe no one should reply.
one thing i do no is people are educated on what nuclear power can do for the worse to human kind . and what has gone wrong in the passed with nuclear power . and i think most people would agree . except the EDUCATED ones that the bad points on uranium . outweigh the good ones .
but this doesnt mean i am right . i could be way wrong, it's just my humble . un nuclear educated . have no vested interest in profit from uranium sales, fearful opinion.
i stand corrected , there are a few here who are nuclear educated . and have veiws on positives and negatives regarding this topic.

[39ClevoUte]

no one has got fusion working yet... but there is a lot of work going on.
Check the web.

[gozza]

this has probly been brought up/covered as i haven't had time to read everything...
but if we run out of water and need desalination plants we will need more coal mines or a nuclear facility...no buts about it

[charles_wif_xf]

Originally Posted by Falcon Freak

What about the alternative nuclear power form - nuclear fusion? Is this a viable option?

FF

Current fusion technology is of the "hot" form, meaning that the nuclear reactor is heated to many millions of degrees to enable the light nuclei to overcome their repulsion to each other. It takes a massive amount of energy to create the various techniques of keeping the temperature up high enough and to prevent the nuclei from embedding within the walls of the reactor, thus being rendered useless.

Originally Posted by gtfpv

i get offended when people , call others who dont agree with them . UNEDUCATED .
I BET MAYBE NO ONE ON THIS FORUM IS PROPERLY EDUCATED ON NUCLEAR ENERGY.
therefore maybe no one should reply.
one thing i do no is people are educated on what nuclear power can do for the worse to human kind . and what has gone wrong in the passed with nuclear power . and i think most people would agree . except the EDUCATED ones that the bad points on uranium . outweigh the good ones .
but this doesnt mean i am right . i could be way wrong, it's just my humble . un nuclear educated . have no vested interest in profit from uranium sales, fearful opinion.
i stand corrected , there are a few here who are nuclear educated . and have veiws on positives and negatives regarding this topic.

You make a good point there gtfpv. When most people think of nuclear power, they automatically think Chernobyl. But fission based nuclear technology has its benefits and can be very safe if built right with the proper safeguards. A well designed and built nuclear power plant can be completely isolated from the rest of the environment where it resides. In such a case, the only problem is dealing with the waste products. And I for one know that burying it doesn't solve the problem, it just passes it on to successive generations.

[Spotty]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Sorry to keep winding you up Spotty. I actually agree with the the jist of all you have posted. It may be a bit feely touchy for some.

Your idea of a tax on non-renewables addresses some economic issues. And would change the landscape as far as which power source is the most attractive. Unfortunately that's one of the reasons some people would be dead against it.

The Kyoto Protocol seemed common sence to me. But our government says no because it would cost jobs.

"Work all day in the blue sky mine there will be food on the table tonight!"
Peter Garrett Member for Kingsford Smith

Nah your not really winding me up I'm enjoying the terrific dialogue on this thread from you and many others. Apart from our politicians who seem incapable to make decisons that are free from political motives or the lobbying of corporations I think society has more power and potential to influence outcomes than we realise. Collectively we can influence environmental related issues in many ways and urge anyone who hasn't had the opportunity.. to watch the movie 'The Corporation' to borrow or buy a copy. Bowling Columbine is another good movie as are the books "stupid white men" and 'the rise and fall of the third chimpanzee'. I'm not advocating Mike Moore as being unbiased or someone without a premediataed motivation its just that this stuff is quite provocative and gets us thinking about many issues and generally increasing social awareness. I dont have a political agenda but I do like to challenge accepted norms. My goal in life is to teach my kids not to conform with anything unless their survival or the well being of others depends on it. Unless socety can bring about collective gradual change regardin our unsustainable lifestyles via a process tht is independant of our poliical system the introduction of nuclear power on a wider scale will accelarate the inevitable outcome which will be widespread destruction of our environment. Substantially reducing our consumption of non renewable energy through the introduction of higher consumption excises within the next couple of years is the most appropriate way of tackling the current and future energy and associated environmental problems. As they say.....no pain no gain.

[turboute]

Fusion would be good if we could get it to work but it is a whole lot more dangerous than neuclear power.

Not so much the fact that there wil be radiation etc around for a long time but the fact taht if anything goes wrong there will only be a crater left. The problem that is occuring with fusion power is that it is too unstable / we cannot control it. It has apparently come close to break even point a few times - maybe even over break even point by now(ie when it starts to produce as much power it consumes). But at this point the heat is rising exponentially and is too dificult to control and cool down. So the physicists have to shut it down and go back to the drawing board.

Also to get the process started requires a huge amount of power - I think the main research centre is in either englend or france - and it is powered by one of the neuclear power plants in the area.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Spotty

Substantially reducing our consumption of non renewable energy through the introduction of higher consumption excises within the next couple of years is the most appropriate way of tackling the current and future energy and associated environmental problems. As they say.....no pain no gain.

Spotty - it's interesting that you seek a certain level of independence from our elected leaders and their political motives yet have mentioned several times that you feel an increase in excises is the most practical solution to the problem which we are facing.

I'm by no means having a go at you... But i guess i'm just considering the paradox faced by a government when introducing these measures.

The need for action would no doubt be dictated by the government's constituency (?spelling... gimme a break - its Friday )... who would no doubt be the ones who cry "bloody murder" when excises on coal powered electricity were introduced.

Listen to the amount of whinging and complaining that goes on around here regarding excises on petroleum products - and its clear that any plan (regardless of how much better off we'd be for it) to introduce such measures to electricity would go down like a lead baloon.

Which, in a circular kind of way - brings us back your comment that we need to remove politics/motives from the equation. Now, Im quite politically motivated and strongly aligned to one side... but i'm not quite so naiive as to believe that any party (left or right) would put its own interests on the back bench in order to do something that would provide a long term benefit to our girt by sea - and the globe as a whole.

But... this paradox a government and its opposition find themselves in.... is it not "our" fault in the first place? Arent we the ones they are trying to sell themselves to?

It would appear we are trapped between a rock and a semi solid substance

Cheers
Martin

PS. I thought Mike Moore's "The Big One" was much better than columbine/farenheit - there's less of grey area when hilighting the atrocities of private enterprise

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

PS. I thought Mike Moore's "The Big One" was much better than columbine/farenheit - there's less of grey area when hilighting the atrocities of private enterprise

There's a n3rdy american chemistry student sitting next to me at the moment talking about Halo 3... he looks like Mike Moore's clone! (MiniMike?) :

[Spotty]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Spotty - it's interesting that you seek a certain level of independence from our elected leaders and their political motives yet have mentioned several times that you feel an increase in excises is the most practical solution to the problem which we are facing.

I'm by no means having a go at you... But i guess i'm just considering the paradox faced by a government when introducing these measures.

The need for action would no doubt be dictated by the government's constituency (?spelling... gimme a break - its Friday )... who would no doubt be the ones who cry "bloody murder" when excises on coal powered electricity were introduced.

Listen to the amount of whinging and complaining that goes on around here regarding excises on petroleum products - and its clear that any plan (regardless of how much better off we'd be for it) to introduce such measures to electricity would go down like a lead baloon.

Which, in a circular kind of way - brings us back your comment that we need to remove politics/motives from the equation. Now, Im quite politically motivated and strongly aligned to one side... but i'm not quite so naiive as to believe that any party (left or right) would put its own interests on the back bench in order to do something that would provide a long term benefit to our girt by sea - and the globe as a whole.

But... this paradox a government and its opposition find themselves in.... is it not "our" fault in the first place? Arent we the ones they are trying to sell themselves to?

It would appear we are trapped between a rock and a semi solid substance

Cheers
Martin

PS. I thought Mike Moore's "The Big One" was much better than columbine/farenheit - there's less of grey area when hilighting the atrocities of private enterprise

Haven't caught up with the big one and will check it out..is it a book or a DVD. I agree with you entirely regarding your comments on government and the populous (if there is such a word) it would indeed be a courageous call and would I have no doubt be the beggining of what would be a very quick political extinguision of the side whichever side instigated such a decision. I guess thats why I was advocating a gradual shift......which would provide society with time to prepare...but without being to soft in terms of tempering the sense of urgency required.

Once I did some systems modelling of the effect on the number of herion users if the governmnet sanctioned the police to increase the number of drug busts. Without going into all the detail and scenarious the result was amazing. The actaul outcome was that the number of herion users actually increase if the thre is an an increase in drug busts. The proposed solution was to do nothing. The premise is that the users would all die of and their would be a cessation of demand....hence every system inevitably finds its true balance. Now I have to ask.....would any politician every agree to ceasing drug busts as a way of ridding us of the herion problem? No way......political sensitivities and the public outcry would ruin their chances of re election. This same principle can be applied to a government having the courage to increase excise on non renewable energy. The trouble is in this case is that if they do nothing or allow nuclear to be introduced on a larger scale future generations face a terrible outcome either in the next 100 years when fossil fuel has ruined our environment or, in a few hundred years time when we have the problem of radioactive waste.

[red_hotxr6]

So after all this light banter on the subject, should we have nuclear energy as a power supply.? I really do think that if the reactor? the building? and the actual handling of the materials, were handled and or supervised properly as such a dangerous "thing" for want of a better word, we could have a clener more efficient method of suppling power.I mean a gun is dangerous but handled the right way it is absolutly safe, so is a car, etc, why not nuclear power.?

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Spotty

Haven't caught up with the big one and will check it out..is it a book or a DVD.

I beleive it started life as a MM book - but was turned into a movie, which I believe was his first. A lot more of a documentary surrounding the tour for abovementioned book.... the people he meets, the companies he harrasses etc. Definately worth a watch. Love him or hate him - it's funny stuff.

Your comments regarding drug busts are fascinating... one of those things that seems so backwards it just has to be forwards... so illogical that it must be logical lol. I drew a parrallel - in the energy context - to "Jevon's paradox", one such interpretation that basically says the less energy an individual uses - the quicker it is used.

Apologies for the bulk cut and paste but easier than explaining it in my own words

Originally Posted by www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

Pretend you own a computer store and that your monthly energy bill, as of December 2004, is $1,000. You then learn about the coming energy famine and decide to do your part by conserving as much as possible. You install energy efficient lighting, high quality insulation, and ask your employees to wear sweaters so as to minimize the use of your store's heating system.

After implementing these conservation measures, you manage to lower your energy bill by 50% - down to $500 per month.

While you certainly deserve a pat-on-the-back and while your business will certainly become more profitable as a result of your conservation efforts, you have in no way helped reduce our overall energy appetite. In fact, you have actually increased it.

At this point, you may be asking yourself, "How could I have possibly increased our total energy consumption when I just cut my own consumption by $500/month? That doesn't seem to make common sense . . .?"

Well think about what you're going to do with that extra $500 per month you saved. If you're like most people, you're going to do one of two things:

1. You will reinvest the $500 in your business. For instance,
you might spend the $500 on more advertising. This will
bring in more customers, which will result in more
computers being sold. Since, as mentioned previously, the
average desktop computer consumes 10X it's weight in
fossil-fuels just during its construction, your individual
effort at conserving energy has resulted in the
consumption of more energy.

2. You will simply deposit the $500 in your bank account
where it will accumulate interest. Since you're not using
the money to buy or sell anything, it can't possibly be
used to facilitate an increase in energy consumption,
right?

Wrong. For every dollar a bank holds in deposits, it will loan out

between six and twelve dollars. These loans are then used by the bank's customers to do everything from starting businesses to making down payments on vehicles to purchasing computers.

Thus, your $500 deposit will allow the bank to make between $3,000 and $6,000 in loans - most of which will be used to buy, build,or transport things using fossil fuel energy.

Which leads me to the conclusion that you need widespread, global buy-in. If one thought that changing the way people thought about politics in a domestic fashion was a difficult task... imagine trying to implement such a way of thinking at a global level.

[Spotty]

[QUOTE=4.9 EF Futura]I beleive it started life as a MM book - but was turned into a movie, which I believe was his first. A lot more of a documentary surrounding the tour for abovementioned book.... the people he meets, the companies he harrasses etc. Definately worth a watch. Love him or hate him - it's funny stuff.

Your comments regarding drug busts are fascinating... one of those things that seems so backwards it just has to be forwards... so illogical that it must be logical lol. I drew a parrallel - in the energy context - to "Jevon's paradox", one such interpretation that basically says the less energy an individual uses - the quicker it is used.

Apologies for the bulk cut and paste but easier than explaining it in my own words

Thanks for the tip on mm will follow it up. Your quote is a very interesting read...and I agree with the scenarios presented. It highlights my systemic arguments...we are all part of a large system that has a plethora of co-dependant mini systems operating within it which are connected by a series of reinforcing loops many of which provide unintended outcomes. (wheres my white board). I feel you are suggesting that to achieve a system wide change all the paticipants in the system must paticipate i'.e the global buy in and work towards a mutually agreed outcome. The reailty is that will never happen. The world is to vast and complex and with many competing vested interests I feel. So just where is best point of leverage what will achieve the change we seem to agree is needed but with the minimum number of unintended or disadvantageous outcomes? Raising excise is a big call and the one major bad outcome will be the inevitable drop in our standard of living from a whole range of perspectives. Education, health, avaliability of food... the list is endless....but at the end of the day without our environment we have no hope of surviving.

[Walkinshaw]

Originally Posted by XRchic

I wonder if this thread will bring out the forum Emos....hahaha.

Polution man, its strangeling me, making my life a black abyss. Why is the world so dark.

I'm off to cut myself.

[351ciofgrunt]

yes...we need nuclear power