Thread: Nuclear Power - debate / poll

Unless I have missed something, the arguments in favour of nuclear power are:
1. It is cheap -no it isn't.
2. It is clean -no it isn't.
3. It will solve global warming - no it won't.
4. It is a quick fix -no it isn't.
5. It is a long term solution -no it isn't.
6. It is safe - no it isn't.

Doesn't seem to have a lot going for it does it?

Originally Posted by JDNSW

A few more comments:-


Solar Voltaic:- Although on the face of it, this is impossibly expensive, I think that there is a real opening for it in the form of home installations supplying power back into the grid. The reason I think it will work, is that there are a lot of people prepared to put their money where their thoughts are with renewable energy, and it has the advantage that money is spent in small amounts, and the power uses the existing grid - and because a lot of the power is generated close to where it is used, it saves on distribution costs.

John

This is an interesting point for me at the moment as I'm in the process of having a new home designed, for construction later in the year. My intention with this home was initially to incorporate solar power, solar hot water and a domestic bore for some of the water. After doing some costings based on our current energy usage for electricity and gas, my calculations show that the most economic solar power solution will take us a little over 26 years to break even (assuming an annual 5% increase in electricity), and the solar hot water will take 10 years to break even (after Fed & State Govt rebates and incentives). Coincidently the expected life of the solar hot water unit is...yes, 10 years. Neither are therefore viable alternatives economically at this stage, and try as I might, I can find no argument in favour of either except for the green one.

On the other hand, the domestic bore is a shoein economically and survives my scutiny of our initial plans.


Paul

Originally Posted by vnx205

Unless I have missed something, the arguments in favour of nuclear power are:
1. It is cheap -no it isn't.
2. It is clean -no it isn't.
3. It will solve global warming - no it won't.
4. It is a quick fix -no it isn't.
5. It is a long term solution -no it isn't.
6. It is safe - no it isn't.

Doesn't seem to have a lot going for it does it?

Doesn't seem to have a lot going for it does it?
__________________


No, it doesn't, Regards Frank.

Originally Posted by vnx205

Unless I have missed something, the arguments in favour of nuclear power are:
1. It is cheap -no it isn't.
2. It is clean -no it isn't.
3. It will solve global warming - no it won't.
4. It is a quick fix -no it isn't.
5. It is a long term solution -no it isn't.
6. It is safe - no it isn't.

Doesn't seem to have a lot going for it does it?

I disagree on point 5. It is a long term solution. How can anything with that kind of a half life on its by-products be considered short term. It's going to be around for a very long time!

Originally Posted by vnx205

Unless I have missed something, the arguments in favour of nuclear power are:
1. It is cheap -no it isn't.
2. It is clean -no it isn't.
3. It will solve global warming - no it won't.
4. It is a quick fix -no it isn't.
5. It is a long term solution -no it isn't.
6. It is safe - no it isn't.

Doesn't seem to have a lot going for it does it?

You don't state what your answer would be.

Originally Posted by dm_td5

I disagree on point 5. It is a long term solution. How can anything with that kind of a half life on its by-products be considered short term. It's going to be around for a very long time!

Doesn't that make it a long term problem rather than a long term solution?

Originally Posted by vnx205

Unless I have missed something, the arguments in favour of nuclear power are:
1. It is cheap -no it isn't.
2. It is clean -no it isn't.
3. It will solve global warming - no it won't.
4. It is a quick fix -no it isn't.
5. It is a long term solution -no it isn't.
6. It is safe - no it isn't.

Doesn't seem to have a lot going for it does it?

Sorry vnx, must disagree, on some points at least.

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.

Originally Posted by moose

You don't state what your answer would be.

Efficient use of energy would be a start.
According to a study of energy consumption in OECD countries published in 2001, Europeans use 50% less energy per head than Americans to maintain the same standard of living. I suspect that Australia leans more towards the US than Europe in its pattern of energy consumption. It seems that lights in the hallways of European hotels are automatically turned off after 3 minutes. Does that happen in the majority of Australian hotels?
Homes can be made more energy efficient without adding to the cost or lowering living standards.
About 20 years ago the CSIRO (I think) took a standard Jennings home, oriented it the right way on the block, slightly changed the width of the eaves and the size of some of the windows and added insulation. Then with a little bit of care about when they opened and closed doors and windows, especially on hot days, over a 12 month period were able to reduce the energy consumption to about 25% compared to a number of the same Jennings home which had not been modified.
Most energy efficiency measures cost less than the cost of electricity generation and distribution. This will be even more true if we move to some of the slightly dearer, but cleaner energy sources.
That isn't the whole answer, but it could make an enormous contribution.