Thread: Nuclear Power - debate / poll

Originally Posted by shorty943

From memory Allan, that study also showed a shaded roof can reduce the ineer ( edit) inner roof space temperature in summer by as much as 30c.

If you want to see who leaves the lights on at night, go to the NASA website and search for a photograph called "Earthlights". I use it as my desktop background, to remind me of what a crock the Kuoto Protocol is.

Shorty.

Link to earthlights pic.

http://www.cojoweb.com/earthlights.html

Cheers
Simon

Lucas Heights, Australia's only reactor, one of the very first fully operational nuclear reactors in the world. One of the many reactors in the world to not give problems, is strictly medicinal. Yes boys and girls, with out Lucas Heights, there would be no anti cancer radiotherapy drugs available to medicine. Make you think?

Shorty.

Originally Posted by LandyAndy

Hi Guys
Yes go for it.
Its actually starting to be proven much better for the world than oil/coal.
I watched a doco on SBS a month or 2 ago that really opened my eyes.
It was based on Chernobyl.
OK the poor unfortunates with the disaster in their backyards suffered horrific consequences.
BUT they found out Xkms out(sorry didnt store it in the memory banks) that the cancer rate was way down on the normal rate.The scientists were set aside,the "accepted" model for radiation/cancer was not working,infact it was opposite.
They then turned their research to the good old USofA.
They got a map of the country imposed the cancer rates for the country upon it.Now the good old USofA actually has very high natural background radiation in quite an area.The big suprise was the cancer rates were WAY down where the natural radiation was high,agreeing with the Chernobyl results.
I think nuclear is the way to go,we are lucky we can locate plants in the "never never" to help prevent major stuff ups.
I also belive if you are using nuclear you are responsible for the waste.It needs to be kept away from terrorists.You cant safely store the waste in most parts of the world,yes Australia has the open areas but it is still a big risk.
Perhaps the answer is to load the waste into rockets and fire them at the sun,they will burn up and be destroyed.We recieve radiation big time from the sun anyhow,and the amount sent would be small in comparison.
We could send it in rockets the other direction,much like sending all your rubbish to the dump.BUT greater beings out there could find it and send it back.
Go nuclear,WITH GREAT CAUTION,the french,poms,yanks and ruskis are all at it and have been for a long time,the disasters are remarkably low.
It would do big$$$$ for our economy,WA has the biggest uranium deposits in the world!!!!
The Chinese are after it big time,even the ggod old USofA would want their share.
If there was a 100% gauranteed buyback of waste that was included in the sale,Aussie could send the waste to the sun,not real comfortable with burying the waste in the "never never"
Andrew

Brilliant, what happens if one of your waste rockets blows up just after launch, a couple of tonnes of nuclear waste floating around the world for all to enjoy, Regards Frank.

Originally Posted by shorty943

Lucas Heights, Australia's only reactor, one of the very first fully operational nuclear reactors in the world. One of the many reactors in the world to not give problems, is strictly medicinal. Yes boys and girls, with out Lucas Heights, there would be no anti cancer radiotherapy drugs available to medicine. Make you think?

Shorty.

Yes it makes me think, I should have had the prostate operation instead of the bloody radiotherapy, I wouldn't have cancer now or the damage from the radiation, Regards Frank.

Originally Posted by shorty943

1, is it cheap? in the short term, no, it is expensive to setup. In the long term yes.
2, is it clean? most certainly yes, if properly maintained, and run not by bloody bean counters, but by propperly educated, far less emotive people.
3, will it solve global warming? one hell of a lot less CO2 in the atmosphere certainly can't hurt.
4, is it a quick fix? Okay, I'll give you a half a point there. They do take some time to propperly build and secure, from an engineering point of view, that is.
The safety of the public, is directly related to the construction and the operation of ANY heavy industry. And power generation, is that if anything is.
5, is it long term? what the? you bet your bippy it is sonny.
6, see 2.

It was my specialty in the Navy, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence. I have had to actually study Nuclear Power and weaponry, at some depth for your safety's sake. Garrycol, was once one of my young officer trainees, we are rather less emotive on the subject, I beleive, because of our education in the field.

We should have started building NP stations 10 or 15 years ago.

Okay, by the end of the post, it seems like I may disagree on almost all points. I am allowed to.

Just a thought, I am going to cheat a bit here, because I actually have open power station qualifications, so I could be one up on some here.
Can anybody describe how a nuclear power station actually operates? (garrycol - no cheating) I am not trying to show off. I want to know how much the average person understands about the way it is done.

Shorty.

Point no.2 Clean? Isn't it true that "venting" is a standard practice at nuclear reactors involving the release of radioactive gases to the atmosphere?
Point no. 3 CO2 reduction? Nuclear powerstations will not remove a hell of a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere.
What about the energy required to build the reactor and mine, mill and process the uranium? That contributes to greenhouse gases. The claims about removing CO2 ignore the contribution of these stages in the process.
Point no. 6. How can it be long term if the reserves of high grade ore are so limited? When we move to lower grade ore, the CO2 emitted in the mining and milling becomes even greater.
How do nuclear reactors work? Are you asking about Generation I, Light Water Generation II (which make up the majority of existing reactors and do you mean the Pressurised Water Reactors or the Boiling Water Reactors) or Heavy Water Generation II Reactors, or Generation III such as the AP-1000 PWR or III+ Reactors or Generation IV. They all have their problems including the problem with Gen IV relying on fuel and plant performance figures that have not been tested let alone proven to be achievable and requiring metals to resist corrosion way beyond anything that has been achieved so far.

Nuclear is for DICKHEADS

Originally Posted by novice42

Nuclear is for DICKHEADS

interesting , would you like to elaberate?

I don’t know how anybody can think nuclear power is going to be cheap.

Ever Howard, in the last month or so, stated that nuclear power is going to be 3 times the cost of current power and he also stated that he was prepared to artificially inflate the cost of coal powered energy to make nuclear power more attractive.

How does this make nuclear power cheaper.

Thick carefully people, we are all being played for suckers just so Howard’s mates can line their pockets.