Printable View
It is perhaps worth remembering that the USA is not the world. Using the yable from Wikipedia, there are currently 4449 power reactors providing over 400,000 megawatts, of which about 25% is in the USA, where there are 104 of those reactors, and nuclear power provides about 20% of power.Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
It is perhaps worth remembering that the USA is not the world. Using the table from Wikipedia, there are currently 449 power reactors providing over 400,000 megawatts, of which about 25% is in the USA, where there are 104 of those reactors, and nuclear power provides about 20% of power.Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
Unlike the USA, where as you say no new plants have been built in 30 years - except for one currently under construction, and 30 proposed - there are, worldwide, 32 under construction, 51 planned or ordered, and 217 proposed. Obviously all countries do not share your views on the costs. (I suspect that "proposed" has a wide variety of meanings from "someone's brainstorm" to "plans are almost finished")
As is fairly well known, the outstanding user of nuclear power is France, where it provides 77% of power, but other major users of nuclear power (as a proportion of power generation) include Japan 34%, Ukraine 47%, Sweden 46%, Belgium 54%, Switzerland 43%, Slovakia 54%, Lithuania 64%, Slovenia 42% and Armenia 43.5%.
John
Nuclear power is a great solution if they can make it safe.
The last time a plant came online in the USA was 1996 and this plane was started in 1973. This was only half of the two reactors planned. The second half, also started in 1973, is due on line in 2011.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Hardly what you would call “NEW” and as the two plants are also used to produce weapons grade Tritium and the profit made from the Tritium rods is a contributing factor in the running cost of the plant.
So should we start constructing these sorts of plants here?
Most of the counties that use nuclear power do so because they lack other forms of energy and as yet, none have come up with a viable means of waste handling. Just shaving it in a hole in the ground is not the answer.
I make the point again, that the USA does not constitute the world. Certainly the countries that tend to use more nuclear are those that have few alternatives, at least without relying on imported energy (mostly they have to rely on imported uranium, but the sheer volumes required are minuscule compared to any other energy source, meaning the effect of supply interruptions can be almost eliminated with stockpiles that are quite manageable).Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
Without the pressure to reduce carbon emissions it would make no sense for Australia, with coal resources equal to thousands of years of domestic consumption to even think about nuclear.
I don't have a definite answer to whether Australia should be building nuclear power plants. But they are almost* the only base load power plant that can be up and running in time to replace coal if the government's plans to reduce Australia's emissions are to be met.
*The only realistic alternative is to replace coal fired power stations with natural gas ones. This will not make as big a reduction in emissions, and will require other deeper cuts as well, but might make it, supplemented by green power.
I have little faith in clean coal - while technically quite feasible and using well understood technology, I have great difficulty seeing it being economically viable. The high cost of clean coal, or coal paying emission charges, or the opportunity cost of gas will make nuclear look economically attractive in the relatively near future.
Regardless of what is done about power generation, assuming something similar to the government's plans goes ahead, expect to pay at least three or four times in real terms than what you are paying now for power, and proportionately more for everything you buy that uses power (i.e. everything).
John
Mate sorry but thats pot kettle thingQuote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
look at coal Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American
or Coal Combustion - ORNL Review Vol. 26, No. 3&4, 1993
Hi Clean32, I won’t go to the links as I would probably agree with what they show but my argument is not that fossil fuel is safe, it’s that it is controllable and what dangers do exist, are short term in that once we have a “SAFE”, clean alternative, the effects of using fossil fuel will quickly dissipate.
This is never going to be the case with nuclear fission fuelled power supplies.
As already posted, there use means we are condemning hundreds of generations to an on going danger, all because we used the fuel for about 20 years.
Furthermore, there is now a real possibility that fusion reactors may be a feasible power generation source with the first attempt at constructing an industrial sized reactor being planned for, and the irony is that some of the worlds biggest nuclear power using nations are the main financiers.
And while a fusion reactor is still potentially dangerous, both during it’s power generation and it’s waste storage, but there is no China Syndrome possibility and the waste has a maximum life span, including it’s degradation beyond low level waste, of no more than 300 years, which is some what of an improvement over the 100,000 years of high level danger that fission reactor waste posses.
Again, fossil fuel is dirty and toxic but is still a much safer intermediate power generating source than any form of fission power generation.
We're being conned by those with vested interests like KRUDD who just love jetting off to yet another gab fest at which nothing is ever decided upon. The conference industry, airlines, many scientists all have an interest in keeping the chat and funding going as long as possible and bugger the cost to jobs or peoples pockets.
Nuclear fission is being looked at as a possible means of power generation in maybe a hundred years but before they do that they have to invent the materials to contain the enormous heat generated by it as it will turn stainless steel into liquid in seconds.
Nothing we have now will possibly stand up to such tremendous heat.
The experiment they have planned is a very very brief burst of fission lasting just seconds to give them something to analyse and how to work towards containment.
Stop polluting by all means but don't go down the path of yet another money spinner where industry can trade it's permits and polluters can just keep polluting.
I'm definitely a sceptic mostly becuase people like KRUDD are so enthusiastic and anything pollies are enthusiastic about is going to cost us money.
Nothing they do will alter climate change which is totally natural and has been going on since the Earth began.
Alan.
OK got your point but sorry based on your argument i cant agree, i think that the taking of the lesser evil is the option, unfortunately this is the opposite of what you are advocating.
Nuclear power stations have ( if you wish to look into it) produced less land contaminated than conventional fossil fuel burning power generating stations.
The pendulum swings even further in favour of nuclear power generation if we look at the number of Mega watts per death and then look at the number per injury. If that is you argument then statisticly it falls in favour of nuclear.
Another point you have made is the long term effects and this is a very important point. But the counter argument is that burning fossil fuels to produce electricity has to date done more damage to the environment ( back to my unlocking ) than all the nuclear incidences have done to date per megawatt produced.
The power plants today are of a design ( basically 3 designs) with there roots in the 1950s even the French stations are 1960s but with upgrades. The newer plants have a totally different layout and are presumably safer.
As for waste, if France can refine there total annual waste down to a block the size of a loaf of bread and even better this is the total waste produced. In comparison fossil fuel burning station cant collect all there waste, it is spear though the atmosphere, buried etc.
As I said before the lesser of the 2 evils
Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigE
I live in country Victoria and it wouldn't worry me if it was built near me so long as I couldn't see it or hear it. Lets say 5 kms away
Dave.