Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 218

Thread: Nuclear power for Australia.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    310

    Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

    I support nuclear power plants for Australia and the establishment of nuclear waste storage facilities in the deserts of South Australia.

    Nuclear power despite the accidents which have occured have killed less people than say Coal power (when you factor in the deaths which have occured from pollution and the mining of coal). Also unlike coal or gas it does not produce greenhouse emissions and at the moment is cheaper than solar and especially wind.

    The deserts of South Australia are the most geologically stable part of the most geologically stable continent in the world. It is certainly a much more desirable place to storage nuclear waste than places which it is being currently stored in (including basements of hosptials).

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,145

    Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

    Quote loubert said View Post
    Good to see that others have heard and read about the fusion experimental reactors around.

    While fission is a good stop gap method, personally I would like to see fusion reactors up and running.

    There are still organisations out there that are anti-nuclear. Such as greenpeace.

    http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...projectFrance/

    The above article shows a complete lack of understanding of the process' of fusion and associated risks.
    And the irony is that a coal fired power plant is actually more radioactive than a nuclear one

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste

    James

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    818

    Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

    While I agree with the sentiment of nuclear over coal, the current technology is a temporary solution at best. The truth is that uranium is a FINITE resource and the mining processes are not sustainable, the second issue is the storage, we can't simply continue to dig up desert forever to store the waste products. I would like to see greater interest among global organisations into Earth orbiting solar arrays and the microwave technology that would be required to beam the energy to the Earth surface. This method of energy production is infinite relative to the habitable period the Earth has left and certainly no more dangerous than fission.
    As far as I know safe and reliable fusion energy is not going to be available on any large scale any time in the near future. Renewable energy sources (solar, wind, wave, geothermal) are currently the way to go I think.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,079

    Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

    Dr Karl says there is now waste free nuclear power creation technology but it is yet to be built anywhere...!?
    “The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.” -Christopher Hitchens

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Lakes
    Posts
    717

    Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

    I don't know enough to form an opinion, but if SimCity has taught me anything (which it has), nuclear power is one hell of a NIMBY and if someone drops a match half your city is obliterated and your game is effectively over.

    Greenpeace against fusion? Ha. Sure, with 10 billion dollars you could build wind farms to power 7.5 million European households... but that's like saying let's stick with a horse and cart on dirt tracks: that money could be better spent on hospitals instead of roads.
    ...?!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Rockhampton
    Posts
    4,760

    Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

    Quote Dane said View Post
    I don't know enough to form an opinion, but if SimCity has taught me anything (which it has), nuclear power is one hell of a NIMBY and if someone drops a match half your city is obliterated and your game is effectively over.
    Chernobyl was designed, built and ran as a disaster waiting to happen.

    I was just reading about it sure on wikipedia but it is interesting reading.

    PS it was considerably more then a "match"
    An atheist hears a voice in their head, they're delusional.
    A theist hears a voice in their head and it's providence.
    mmm go figure

    http://www.betterhuman.org

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Lakes
    Posts
    717

    Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

    Quote robertkd said View Post
    Chernobyl was designed, built and ran as a disaster waiting to happen.

    I was just reading about it sure on wikipedia but it is interesting reading.

    PS it was considerably more then a "match"
    Come to my SimCities, you won't believe your eyes.

    All three of them.
    ...?!

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Not in bible land, Perth
    Posts
    5,666

    Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

    Quote robertkd said View Post
    Chernobyl was designed, built and ran as a disaster waiting to happen.

    I was just reading about it sure on wikipedia but it is interesting reading.

    PS it was considerably more then a "match"
    Chernobyl was not quite a deliberate disaster as you make out. More a combination of design error, operator inexperience and system failure. The reactor had design flaws (SCRAM protocols were slow), operator weakness, (the poor lads running the show were trained on coal fueled power stations) and dumb luck, the reactor was forced online in a testing phase when a coal fired power staton went offline unexpectadely.

    Reading the sequence of events that lead to the failure in reactor 4 is like reading about a train wreck in slow motion.
    I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
    Mark Twain

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    W.A.
    Posts
    352

    Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

    not only that, but many of the safety systems were deliberately taken offline and bypassed.

    Chernobyl wasn't so much an accident as more of several concerted actions to cause a deliberate catastrophic failure.
    Without the intent.

    It's the greatest misunderstood and misrepresented, devastation to man kind.
    The real damage it caused is not so much the immediate radioactive wasteland it's created but more the retardation of such an amazing technology.

    Having said that, mining uranium is a horrendously wasteful and destructive process. I wish we could get and process that stuff in a much more economic way.
    The water wastage alone is enough to put me off it.

    Yet I still support it.
    To the hardworking MODS:
    I trust your judgement, if you feel this thread needs to be moved or merged etc then go ahead you have my "blessing" :-) (just drop me a line and let me know please)

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Rockhampton
    Posts
    4,760

    Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

    Well reading the article it sure seems that way, design issues, construction and materials used in it's construction. Lack of training lack of following operational procedures over riding automatic protection and safety systems. The remarkable point that got my attention was this bit of the analysis,.. the bit in bold at the end.

    [quote]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

    The reactor had a dangerously large positive void coefficient. The void coefficient is a measurement of how a reactor responds to increased steam formation in the water coolant. Most other reactor designs have a negative coefficient, i.e. they attempt to decrease heat output when the vapor phase in the reactor increases, because if the coolant contains steam bubbles, fewer neutrons are slowed down. Faster neutrons are less likely to split uranium atoms, so the reactor produces less power (a negative feed-back). Chernobyl's RBMK reactor, however, used solid graphite as a neutron moderator to slow down the neutrons, and the water in it, on the contrary, acts like a harmful neutron absorber. Thus neutrons are slowed down even if steam bubbles form in the water. Furthermore, because steam absorbs neutrons much less readily than water, increasing the intensity of vaporization means that more neutrons are able to split uranium atoms, increasing the reactor's power output. This makes the RBMK design very unstable at low power levels, and prone to suddenly increasing energy production to a dangerous level. This behavior is counter-intuitive, and this property of the reactor was unknown to the crew.[/qoute]
    An atheist hears a voice in their head, they're delusional.
    A theist hears a voice in their head and it's providence.
    mmm go figure

    http://www.betterhuman.org

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •