Thread: Nuclear power plants

We already have one, at Lucas Heights, it's only used to make isotopes for nuclear medicines though.
Cancer therapy stuff.
One of the oldest reactors in the world now, and a very good safety record because of our way of running it.
Biggest problem with them has been the corporate way of ducking maintenance, as shown at Chenobyl and Fukushima, sadly.
Admittedly they also need to be in a safer more stable place, than by the sea in a quake prone country.

Originally Posted by shorty943

One of the oldest reactors in the world now, and a very good safety record because of our way of running it.

I thought the old HIFAR reactor was closed in 2007. Now replaced by a different reactor.

Bring it on - I'm a big fan of Nuclear energy - we should have it here in Australia. We have most of the worlds Uranium deposits, a much more stable environment than most countries that use them, and if you build the right reactor - can't remember what they are called, but you can run them dry and they won't bolw up. These types of reactors won't produce weapons grade waste, so they aren't seen in a very positive light by the countries that have Nuclear Weapons programs.

And yes, I'd have on in my back yard. In fact if they ever decide to build one, I'd probably go looking for a job there....

Cheers - Gav

Originally Posted by shorty943

We already have one, at Lucas Heights, it's only used to make isotopes for nuclear medicines though.
Cancer therapy stuff.
One of the oldest reactors in the world now, and a very good safety record because of our way of running it.
Biggest problem with them has been the corporate way of ducking maintenance, as shown at Chenobyl and Fukushima, sadly.
Admittedly they also need to be in a safer more stable place, than by the sea in a quake prone country.

Australia is certainly not free of significant earthquakes: see Australia's worst earthquakes: top 10 most devastating - Australian Geographic. And ANSTO's Lucas Heights facility is hardly accident free (for example, see More nuclear spills at Lucas Heights - National - smh.com.au and Safety breaches at Lucas Heights.

What we need is a fusion reactor, not a fission.

Cheers
KarlB

Yeah I like nuclear power as an energy source. I reckon the country should have lots of tiny Thorium stations dotted around as localised power sources-every other suburb in big cities, no worries about putting the power station near the source of energy (coal etc) and having a massive grid to distribute. Don't discriminate where the stations are built, put them near the demand, so Sydney's north shore or Melbourne's Toorak would have their own little plants just like Bankstown, Shalvey, Dandenong or Rowville to quieten the NIMBYs.

Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Ferret

I thought the old HIFAR reactor was closed in 2007. Now replaced by a different reactor.

Permanent decommissioning of the HIFAR commenced on 30 January 2007 but it will not be totally decommissioned until 2018.

Cheers
KarlB

What is needed is a device that takes the spent but still highly radioactive waste and processes it into a benign substance.

I agree that living with a properly designed and located nuclear plant would be quite safe these days.
A lot safer to live with than say living in the valley below a concrete 1930's Hydro dam that was built across the fault line the river runs in.
.

I think that Australia is totally backward and hippocritical in this area.

Australian Government wants to be all eco friendly etc, have a carbon tax, signed up to the kyoto protocol etc but still burns coal for fuel. That's backward.

Australia has big deposits of uranium and is happy to export that but basically wont allow it to be used in this country. That's hippocrictial.

In my opinion there are many areas of Australia that could be suitable places for a nuclear plant, the Uranium is here the knoweldge is mostly here, but sure, they are really few and far between so overseas companies would be involved. There is no getting away from that.

I think the reason why there isn't is becuase no government has the balls to say, "to meet Australia's future electrical needs we shall build a nuclear plant".

In the mean time the population is continuing to grow, whilst TV sets and Air-con units may be come more efficient, the numbers of them will increase and so there will be no significant net gain, more efficeint but more of them = same power consumption.

As for the risk of the nuclear power plants.

The one in Japan did not fail.
The problem was caused by the Tsunami which was much bigger than expected and breached the embankment.
the embankment and containment could have been built higher / bigger but at what cost? what is practicable? example, a train derails at a level crossing and runs in to a bus with 50 people on it. all the people die. Is the answer now to say all traffic must stop 75meters from the gates when the level crossing barriers are down? no, thats not practicable so the risk analysis and common sense to stop how ever many meters from the gates.

Same with the Japanese nuclear plant. The embankment was built how ever many meters high and big based on risk analysis.

Chernobly
The plant did not fail. The engineers running the place over rode saftry control system and pulled out control rods and then lost control. Say what you might about it being Russian etc but really, do you think Russia would WANT to happen what did?

Three Mile Island
this happened when I was 3 years old so my knowledge about this is based on a quick read of a wikipedia article [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident"]Three Mile Island accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
It seems to me that a component failed. components fail.
The systems in place and operator management of those systems caused the failure to not be known for quite some time. This was in 1979. Systems, technology and system architecture have advanced greatly since then. Could we expect the same to happen again - the same what?
component failure? - yes - any component can fail.
Operator error? - Yes - humans can fail.
Severity? - no. with increased control and monitoring systems i would not expect that a situation like Three Mile Island to occur again - but it could.

Is it environmentally friendly I think so. we are constantly told about the carbon emissions etc the use of fossil fuels heating up the planet. Nuclear power seems environmentally friendly to me.

Where to Build?
Teh closer to the Uranuim deposits the better to reduce the transports costs. Construction of power lines and their use over the years is a lot cheaper than transport costs.
They do need lots of cooling water and so near the sea would be the obvious answer. I was in the vicinity of Thorness plant in Scotland years ago (no time to visit unfortunately) they get big storms up there and that plant survives. there are plants on the Atlantic coast of France and they survive. could one survive a cyclone? of course - if it was built appropriately and with that comes cost.

I would not expect one to be built on the Coral Sea because of the proximity to the Barrier Reef. in the Gulf of Carpentaria would be good due to the proximity of deposits in the Cape but the cost of building to survive a Cat 5+ Cyclone would be very high.

I would suggest that anywhere south of Brisbane right round to Perth would be suitable. Not because I live in FNQ - far from it - but access to sea water for cooling and generally less sever weather. It would also be closer to the major population centers

Are there risks. YES. What are the severity of those risks. It depends on the mode of failure. Its like saying that every airplane crash is severe and blaming the manufacture of the aircraft. I cant think of an accident in the last 20 years where the aircraft failed. I can think of accidents where many people were killed and some on the ground died.

Its risk evaluation. If you want to fly but not have the risk of killing some one on the ground dying if the aircraft you are in fails - don't fly.

If you don't want to have the risk of leakage of nuclear gas, reduce power consumption, tell all the people to turn off the air-con units. Tell, MAKE, the council take down all the street lights. Make all the office buildings turn off all the lights during the day time. Outlaw wasteful electronic billboards advertising stuff by the road side. Stop them printing junk mail that only goes from the letter box to the bin. Stop the population growth. If you reduce all this, there wont be a need for addition power.

I would be happy and excited if plans were announced to build a nuclear plant in Australia.

Those are my thoughts on it. I don't want to be antagonistic about it, just replying to your thread opening post.

Hay Ewe