Thread: Nuclear Power - debate / poll

There is a lot of, I don't want to hear you, in this thread. Like JD writes, we will need the power capacity somehow, somewhere. As yet, no real viable option has been forwarded, yet every year the drain on capacity rises, with absolutely no new generation facilities built. Just what do some people want. Free electricity from non poluting free air? Never gonna happen. You want, you pay. Simple. Coal costs to get out of the ground, then it must be proccessed to make it usable in furnaces to boil water to make steam to turn turbine. 1 ton of coal, 1 ton of oil, or 1 ton of Uranium fuel rods. I KNOW, which will produce electricity for a hell of a lot longer, and so do you. There is the cost benefit. We also benefit from much lowered CO2 emmissions, we will see. We will see.
Trust me, I am no lover of the Nuke, that was my field in the services, but, we are not talking about a damn bomb design, but a strictly controlled furnace of enormous potential, to generate power. Ordinary old common or garden variety electricity.Bah humbug, I'm going outside to rub two sticks together. I'm going to eat burned dead animals.

Shorty.

I return bearing information.
Been googleing. check this Aussie site, from Melbourne. http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm It will make a mockery of all the emotive rubbish on costs for Nuclear Power Generation. Granted, the initial setup of the reactor and the containment units are high, and so they must be for our own safety. But, in the long run NPG is much cheaper in actual running costs.
Than any other form of generation. Any other. Period. And these figures also include all the costs of waste management, everything.

Well what a thread this turned out to be!

As it turned out after posting this thread i have been flat-out with work and have only just read this in its entirety, it took me close to 2 hours! And even sparked a family debate as i read out loud snippets of peoples comments.

Interestingly i did feel a warm feeling inside as i read the posts, i have a great deal of admiration for everyone who posted there opinions.

When i originally posted this thread i thought to myself "well this could turn really ugly" and my inner voice replied "never mind that will be amusing if nothing else" But in reality there wasn't one post that i said to myself "ahhh what a tossa!"

For such a sensitive topic in such a non moderated discussion arena its amazing that something so well constructed could emerge without it turning into a slagging match.

As it was mentioned in a previous post 60% of Australians are against NP yet the poll here shows the opposite, this is obviously due to the demographics of the AULRO forums, but why? Are we as a group smarter/better informed than the average man on the street? If reading the threads in here is anything to go by i would have to say yes! If nothing else we sure as hell are a better disciplined bunch than the norm

Now i just wish someone could get the politicians to read this, maybe then they would stop treating us like children!

Originally Posted by shorty943

Check this Aussie site, from Melbourne. http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

I did and surprise, surprise, the Uranium Information Centre comes out in favour of uranium.

Originally Posted by vnx205

I did and surprise, surprise, the Uranium Information Centre comes out in favour of uranium.

Hear me sigh with exasperation.

Shorty.

Originally Posted by shorty943

She's a debate alright, isn't it. I can't help wondering who finances the Rocky Mountain Institute. I am somewhat skeptical with "university tests". These tests are all sponsored, financially supported, by someone or some corporation. Don't for one second think that the funding body will release results that do not tally with the way they want things to be seen, or done. university tests only prove what the financial backers want proven.
Shorty.

Originally Posted by shorty943

New Scientist? Oh hell yeah! Question everything, even the questions, they may be misleading to. You know, the old trick question, no matter your answer, the question has already misconstrued it. Shorty.

Originally Posted by shorty943

Hear me sigh with exasperation.Shorty.

Shorty.

I thought you would approve of my natural skepticism.

Seriously though, I followed up on a couple of the reports referred to in your link and must admit I am now left wondering why so many apparently reputable sources refer to increased cost of nuclear generated electricity.
Perhaps part of the discrepancy come from the fact that some of the figures are pretty rubbery because the actual cost of waste disposal can only be estimated because the problem ahs not actually been solved.
A lot of things are not as simple as we would like them to be.

Originally Posted by vnx205

I did and surprise, surprise, the Uranium Information Centre comes out in favour of uranium.

That says it all.

I have not read the info in the link but I was surprised that, from what shorty943 has posted, that nuclear power is more economical in the long run because the yanks are continually saying that they are not likely to ever get the cost of producing electricity down to anywhere near what it cost to produce using other forms of energy.

As I have posted before, even the Australian governments paper on the proposal for setting up nuclear power in this country state that the cost is considerably high than is presently the case using other forms of energy.

As far as coal goes, Australia not only leads world in ways of making coal fired power station clean, not cleaner but CLEAN and the first trial CLEAN coal fired power station is about to start operations in the Hunter Valley and yes, the electricity from this CLEAN power station is going to be dearer but NOT 200% dearer like nuclear power will cost but just 20% dearer that a standard coal fired station and as a bonus for countries that by their coal from us, the technology for CLEAN coal fired power stations is going to be provided to them as an incentive to keep buying our coal.

Howard was at the commencement of work on this power station last year so how come we are not hearing more about it?

Skepticism kept me alive in some nasty places Allan. It is healthy.
I am gladdened to read, you are now considering skepticism in the other direction. Also healthy. NBCD, was my deal in the Navy man, I've been to places with unpronounceable names, had to clean up some ugly stuff. That is why, I dread the thought, that some public servant permanant under secretary cloth head will re-interpret the rules, and screw things up. This debate is raging on every forum I visit. What jives me, is the total refusal of too many people to listen to the science and the true facts of Nuke power generation. Far too much fear filled deliberate mis-education, for a truly informed debate in most circles.
This is actually the only debate where the good old hide behind the internet abuse wars have not started.
Thank you Allan. Maybe we will meet around the traps one day and have a beer.

Shorty.

Originally Posted by shorty943

That is why, I dread the thought, that some public servant permanant under secretary cloth head will re-interpret the rules, and screw things up.
Shorty.

I have a fear which I think is similar to yours.
If it was only about the science, things would be a lot more predictable.
If we could be confident that the decisions were based on the science, I think we would sleep better at night.
Unfortunately, politics and economics tend to raise their ugly heads.
I am one of those who firmly believes that we will never be safe until the last politician has been strangled with the entrails of the last economist.
I worry that corners will be cut to increase profits and benefit the shareholders.
There is already evidence that some of the recent near misses in the nuclear industry are the result of that sort of thinking.