Nuclear Power - debate / poll

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drivesafe

Here one more point of interest, there is a power source that is available almost everywhere on earth that could be producing electricity tomorrow but for some unknown reason ( to me ) is used very little and thats Thermal heat from the earth’s core, why not.

Cheers.

---

Interestingly in a country where they are experimenting with this (injecting water and using the steam for electricity generation), can't remember where, they have discovered that they are generating significant earthquakes as well. :eek:

Edit: Switzerland -
But geothermal is not entirely risk-free. A recent effort to build such a geothermal power plant in Basel, Switzerland, came to an abrupt halt when it triggered an earthquake measuring 3.4 on the Richter scale, too small to cause damage but large enough to be felt by humans. "We generate between 3,000 and 5,000 earthquakes a year," Calpine's Gilles says. "In a typical day, we experience on average 10. I can guarantee you won't feel any of them." It remains unclear what will happen with the Basel power plant, and the problem may result from its siting; Basel was leveled by an earthquake in 1356. "You are not going to want to put a geothermal facility like this where you have a danger of lubricating a big fault,"

Full story: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...C206BCA2D4E3C5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drivesafe

I have not voted for the labour party since the last time Hawk was elected.

Come the next election, even though I still hate some of the scum in the labour party, I WILL be voting Labour in the hope that enough people will do the same to stop Howard and his rich mates from building a fission nuclear power station in this country.

My reasons for not wanting this type of reactor are many but some of the reasons are as follows.

If we stopped using coal fired power stations tomorrow, it would take another 50 years before the planet would be clear of the pollution these power stations have pumped into the atmosphere.

If we stopped using fission nuclear power tomorrow, 500 generations from now will still have the legacy of monitoring and guarding the waste that we generated today, just to run our air conditioners and the likes.

Now I’m not a tightarse but to make coal fired power stations much MUCH cleaner, it will cost use all about 20 to 30% more in our power bills.

To use nuclear power will cost us a huge 300% more for electricity and the cost DOES NOT include the cost of maintaining the nuclear waste for at least the next 10,000 years and someone is most definitely going to have to pay for that.

The worlds first full sized FUSION reactor is under construction right now in France. The cost of building this reactor is being carried by 6 nations including the USA, but Australia is NOT a part of the development of this new SAFE power supply, why not?

A few more facts, the Three Mile Island accident occurred in 1973, it will be unsafe and have to be monitored, maintained and guarded at least till the year 2973.

Chernobyl, as we all know, nearly had a melt down and many thousands of lives have been lost since that accident occurred but are you aware that the reactor is on the verge of another melt down and they are not sure how to “ FIX “ it this time around.

As for the waste, every time some scum politician or businessman brings up the potential benefits of nuclear power and gets asked the cost of such power, they ALWAYS neglect to include the cost of safely storing the waste.

The USA still has not finished the worlds FIRST permanent nuclear waste storage facility and containers designed to protect the waste for 500 year ( even though they know it is dangerous for at lest 10,000 years ) had to be replaced after just 9 years.

The biggest single factor working against the use of nuclear power use is the fact that we are fed more lies than truths.

Here one more point of interest, there is a power source that is available almost everywhere on earth that could be producing electricity tomorrow but for some unknown reason ( to me ) is used very little and thats Thermal heat from the earth’s core, why not.

Cheers.

---

Seems most of the "For's" dont mind handing the Nuclear Waste problem on to their Future Generations, I for one dont want my future family cursing me and this generation for handing on the nuclear waste legacy for them to sort out, Clean Coal, Renewable Wood, wind, solar and Wave (tidal) power are the legacy I will have no problem handing on, Regards Frank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tank

Coal can be made acceptable....

...Clean coal...

---

In Victoria (latrobe valley to be precise) the coal power stations back in the 70's and 80's were getting flack for pumping out clouds of emissions, so they added chemicals to the coal. The emissions are still there, just that people can't see them now. If that is acceptable then I disagree.

I live within cooee of a wind farm, only six generators, but enough to power the population of the town (around 6000 people). According to the website of the mob that runs it:
"When a good wind blows all the electricity used will be 100% green. The wind farm will produce 34,400MW/h per year. This delivers an equivalent saving of 47,830 tons in greenhouse gasses, planting 68,000 trees or taking 11,000 cars off the road."

Of course it has divided opinion, but personally I think it's ok. The greenies can't be pleased, they reckon the government should invest more in renewable power sources, but also reckon wind farms are unsightly.

Personally I am for N-P. The costs for the fuel itself is lower than coal, but maintenance and running costs are higher. Also, non-radioactive water vapour is the significant operating emission from nuclear power plants.

I would urge all those reading this thread to educate themselves, read texts such as on wikipedia (wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power) before jumping to conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tank

Seems most of the "For's" dont mind handing the Nuclear Waste problem on to their Future Generations, I for one dont want my future family cursing me and this generation for handing on the nuclear waste legacy for them to sort out, Clean Coal, Renewable Wood, wind, solar and Wave (tidal) power are the legacy I will have no problem handing on, Regards Frank.

---

Right on the money!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reads90

It has been proven time and time again the the items used to make power from the sun/ sea/ wind. use more power to make them than they will ever produce in the their life time. So not really that green are they. Also do not procduce enough power to really make a differance still would have to run with something else, as can not be counted as a regular power sourch. Ie it is not sunny no sloar p[ower, if it not windy no wind power and if it is claim as sea then no wave power.

---

Hi Reads90, not sure where you get your facts from but 10 years ago, on average, solar panels were then, were producing, over their life span, 4 times more energy than was required to make them.

Both today's solar panels and wind generator, over their life span, will produce many, many time more energy than was required to make them.

They are NOT the answer in themselves but can be part of a viable alternative to fossil fuels and fission reactors.

The fuel of tomorrow will be hydrogen but it requires other forms of energy to produce it. Wind and solar can play a major part in the production of hydrogen in remote areas and will remove the need to both transport and use fossil fuels and this is just one example, there are many problems to over come yet and a fair bit of development required but no one is spending the big dollars that are needed to do this development work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drivesafe

The fuel of tomorrow will be hydrogen but it requires other forms of energy to produce it. Wind and solar can play a major part in the production of hydrogen in remote areas and will remove the need to both transport and use fossil fuels and this is just one example, there are many problems to over come yet and a fair bit of development required but no one is spending the big dollars that are needed to do this development work.

---

Research is being done...

http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/arti...drogenMNE.html

Personally I would rather see big dollars being put into this sort of development than current nuclear technology.

Don't have too much of an opinion myself as not overly familiar with all the options available but this debate is a good and interesting read

I somehow remember that Victoria passed legislation in the late 70's that Victoria is declared a nuclear free state, it even used to be the slogan on our number plates. some local councils passed by laws prohibiting the transport of non medical nuclear products across their boundaries

How DARE those B@ST@RDS think of putting a nuclear power station in Victoria without going to the people!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave110

How DARE those B@ST@RDS think of putting a nuclear power station in Victoria without going to the people!

---

What ,you seem to think that goverments work in you favour and with your welfare at heart :D :D :D :D Yeah right:D :D
What is got to do with the people , after all all they do is pay their tax, pay the MP's wages and vote them in , so nothing really:D

As a song by a chap years ago said." Goverment is not the solution to our problems Goverment is the problem"

I give you that ar*ehole on the other side of the world Tony Blair , does what he wants when ever he wants and does give a dame what the poeple think about it. Just does it anyway and says tuff, get on with it..
Hence why i am here, and not there

There seems to be a lot of incomplete knowledge on the subject! I voted usure, for reasons given below.

Safety - Nuclear power does not have a perfect safety record, but neither do any of the other power sources. However, the number of deaths due to Chernobyl have been greatly exaggerated - I seem to remember seeing a recent summary that listed it as tens rather than thousands.

Certainly, the number of deaths in the entire nuclear power industry since the year dot is far less than the annual death toll from coal mining - and a little known fact is that coal fired power stations emit more radioactivity into the atmosphere than do nuclear power stations, thanks to the ubiquity of radioactive potassium 40 in the earth's crust. Radiation is a natural part of life - humans evolved along with natural radiation, and there is no credible evidence that low levels of radiation are dangerous. While nuclear waste remains radioactive for centuries, the actual level of radiation decreases quite rapidly, as a little thought will show must be the case - high radiation levels indicate that the nucleus has a short half life. The biggest problems with nuclear are costs and scare campaigns.

There is no shortage of coal either in Australia or the world (and will not be for hundreds of years), so from the economic standpoint coal has a lot to be said for it. Carbon sequestration may be feasible, but is likely to be so expensive that nuclear looks economically attractive

Wind and solar are worth pursuing, although they cannot provide base load, and except in special circumstances are very expensive. (My house relies on solar and wind)

Gas or oil fired power stations suffer from the problem that both are in relatively short supply, gas less so. We are likely to end up with gas fired power stations because they can be built quickly and are relatively cheap, and we are likely to leave action until speed of construction becomes the overriding factor.

There is very little opportunity left for hydroelectic, and the greenies would stop it anyway.

John