Thread: Nuclear Power - debate / poll

I am all for nuclear power. It's time we got rid of the filth that is coal. It might be a great way to power a steam engine but it's no good for creating power and the worlds already operating nuclear power stations have proved that ten fold. It's clean, efficient and it works. The same argument could be made of recycled water but hey, lets wait till we run out of water and coal produced power and then see how many people complain about NOT having it.

Originally Posted by Jonno

It's clean, efficient and it works. The same argument could be made of recycled water but hey, lets wait till we run out of water and coal produced power and then see how many people complain about NOT having it.

Got me mystified Jonno, it’s neither clean nor efficient as it needs far more water and heat because of it’s inherent inefficiencies.

Heat is a pollutant, so the they are not clean and this is only one of many pollutants associated with the nuclear industry.

It’s also ironic that you wave the threat of water shortages as a means to justify the use of nuclear power yet if we introduce them here in Australia, they are just going to add an even greater strain on our already dwindling water supplies.

NO, they are not clean, they are not efficient and we will be paying around three time the price for electricity generated from this crap, all for no other reason but to line the pockets of Howard’s mates.

Read all the info that’s available not just the bits that suite your interests.

Cheers

We've got a wind farm here that is limited to producing only 22% of our power.

Albany to the west has a smaller windfarm that can produce 100% of their power.

Albany is on the same grid as Perth so extra capacity just goes up the grid.

We're on our own grid (about the geographical size of Tassie) that's ageing. If we cranked our windmills up, they would literally blow out the grid.

Why in 2007 we still have above ground electricity amazes me!

Originally Posted by Jamo

Why in 2007 we still have above ground electricity amazes me!

Not wrong there. Last night we spent blacked out for over 6 hours because the above ground grid got ripped up by a wind storm, so a big chuck of the Gold Coast’s Hinterland was without power.

NOT me though!

Originally Posted by Jamo

We've got a wind farm here that is limited to producing only 22% of our power.

Albany to the west has a smaller windfarm that can produce 100% of their power.

Albany is on the same grid as Perth so extra capacity just goes up the grid.

We're on our own grid (about the geographical size of Tassie) that's ageing. If we cranked our windmills up, they would literally blow out the grid.

Why in 2007 we still have above ground electricity amazes me!

Problem with wind power is it is only produced when the wind is blowing - in some areas this is a lot of the time, but nowhere I know of is it 100% reliable.

Why we have above ground distribution in 2007 is three fold :-
1. It is already there - replacing it is much more expensive than maintaining and repairing it.

2. Underground is much more expensive, depending on the subsurface, probably at least five times as much per kilometre for high power transmission, possibly a little less for local distribution. This is because of the costs of excavation, plus the fact that the cables need to have insulation, and this has to be high grade, especially for high power, high voltage lines, plus the conductor thickness has to be a lot greater as there is much less cooling underground.

3. Losses are much greater than for above ground, especially for high power lines, although this can be reduced at great expense by going to DC transmission. This is because the conductive earth round the cable acts like a shorted turn on a transformer - although insignificant for a kilometre or two, it adds up on longer distances.

John

Originally Posted by MT

We have a Federal Govt that:

1. Failed to answer the phone or read the briefings to know that they were wrong about children overboard.

2. Missed, for years, AWB corruption.

3. Invaded Iraq because Saddam was a) harbouring Al Qaeada and b) building nukes.

4. promised that no one would be worse off under 'work choices'

5. lied about interest rates.

6. As recently as last year had senior ministers questioning the science of global warming (that same science that is now the compelling argument to go nuclear all of a sudden).

We have state governments where:

1. Ministers are bought off and influenced by Brian Burke.
2. An incompetent doctor kills people in Bundaberg over an extended period - and then is allowed to leave the country.
3. They cannot make the trains run on time (how hard can it be - the old saying goes that even Mussolini could make the trains run on time in Itay 70 years ago!)

And some Australians apparently want to let these people regulate and monitor nuclear fuelled power plants? (which, if the news about Walker, Morgan et al is correct, will be run by their close mates and party financial supporters).

Good plan.

Two things better not discussed on a forum, Religion and politics. also keeping the emotion out of a debate keeps it relevant.

I have just re-read all the posts in this thread - again. (Yes I know that means I obviously don't have enough important things to keep me busy and that I should get a life.)
I am still left with the impression that on the pro-nuclear side we have:
Unsubstantiated statements that it is clean, efficient, cheap, safe and necessary.
On the anti-nuclear side there seems to be:
Fairly convincing evidence that it is not clean, only appears efficient if you measure the power output for the fuel added at the reactor, is expensive and is unnecessary because people have provided evidence of alternatives making a useful contribution.
Anyone else got the time to re-read every post to confirm or refute my impression?

A few more things that have not been discussed and have a bearing on a decision on whether we should use use nuclear power or not.

First, as nuclear power, according to the most optimistic proposals, is going to cost at least 3 times as much as our present power costs. This means people are going to be using more of their wages, earned from working, to cover these additional costs. Energy of varying forms is used to allow all of use to work. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to workout that this means more energy is required for us to be able to afford nuclear power, or we can just take a nose dive in our living standard.

Next, the cost of financing the construction of all the nuclear power plants and the associated infrastructure is going to place a massive draw on Australia’s investment capital. This will mean a lot of other employment potential developments will either be delayed or never take place at all.

Last but not least, a number of major employers in this country, are here because our power is relatively cheap. Many if not all of these jobs will go off shore and many thousands of associated jobs will just be lost.

How is this of any benefit to Australia as a whole.

Nuclear power is of NO ADVANTAGE to all but a few already very rich Australians.

Cheers