Nuclear power for Australia.

[Godless Ray]

I know they regulary say we are 30,40,50 years away from Fusion but do you guys swallow that? I seriously thing it is unlikely to happen. Though, I do like the idea of intensive harvesting of the existing local one. Has anyone attempted to capture energy from the moons tidal effect? It seems to me if this would be something that could be counted on even more so than solar.

[Volenti]

Originally Posted by Godless Ray

Has anyone attempted to capture energy from the moons tidal effect? It seems to me if this would be something that could be counted on even more so than solar.

There are several small pilot generators around, but ideal positions are pretty limited and often carry massive NIMBY baggage. Up in QLD on the inside of Frazer island there are several areas that should be pretty good for tidal flow generators but good luck getting the greenies/fishermen/whale watching crowd ect to agree to "massive fish/whale/turtle killing blades-of-doom".

The handy thing with a big well anchored tidal turbine is that many of them will also be in a pretty good location for wind energy as well, so you can make it do double duty and park a great big wind turbine on the thing, that's efficient use of materials .

Lots of designs/applications here.
http://www.rise.org.au/info/Tech/tidal/index.html

[owheelj]

Young Australian Skeptics have written a couple of posts debunking some of the myths surrounding nuclear power.

http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009...-power-part-1/

http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009...-power-part-2/

I could cite dozens of peer-reviewed papers, all supporting the contention that uranium mining holds many social, cultural and ecological disbenefits. Anyone with half a brain could. From a rough tally, approximately 4/5 of the respondents to this thread would appear to hold similar views. Why bother preaching to the converted?

This made me lol. Understanding of science fail + constructing an argument fail.

[robertkd]

Originally Posted by owheelj

Young Australian Skeptics have written a couple of posts debunking some of the myths surrounding nuclear power.

None the less interesting reading, including the climate change arguments.

[Elbert]

@ Minerva: It seems to me then, that the vast majority of uranium mines are not in areas of "high conservation value,"

Don't you think it is about time people realised that the entire planet is dangerously over exploited and needs to be proclaimed as having 'High Conservation Value'?

[robertkd]

Well seems the topic is heating up so to speak!

Here is some information on reactors.

http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclea...fety_ircd.html

and here some data on the Japan's reactors

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/index.php

[Fromm_Nicht]

Thorium based nuclear power is a much more sensible bet than Uranium based nuclear. I still would prefer heavy adoption of renewables such as solar thermal and wave energy, but Thorium is a cleaner, safer, more abundant solution to the nuclear question.

there is no possibility of a meltdown, it generates power inexpensively, it does not produce weapons-grade by-products, and will burn up existing high-level waste as well as nuclear weapon stockpiles.

[robertkd]

@ Fromm_Nicht Interesting read, I'm wondering when they say inexpensive I suspect that there must be more to it otherwise costs and economic returns would see it in more wide spread perhaps as costs increase more development will occur. China are also developing/partnering in Tokamak reactor development too.

Writes note to self for when I get home to separate all my thoriated tungsten rods just for good measure.

[Fromm_Nicht]

Originally Posted by robertkd

@ Fromm_Nicht Interesting read, I'm wondering when they say inexpensive I suspect that there must be more to it otherwise costs and economic returns would see it in more wide spread perhaps as costs increase more development will occur. China are also developing/partnering in Tokamak reactor development too.

Writes note to self for when I get home to separate all my thoriated tungsten rods just for good measure.

As far as I understand it, the uranium based nuclear industry took off initially with the advantage of producing weapons grade plutonium. Thorium does not have this advantage and so was largely ignored in the development of reactors. Just speculating here, but the main reason now that Thorium is not being eagerly used to replace uranium across the globe (excepting the rapid uptake and development occuring in China and India) is that the nuclear industry is too set in its ways, and not willing to fork out the capital to change.

I still do not agree that Thorium based reactors are the answer to our future energy issues (in Australia). The reactors are far safer, the fuel more abundant and the spent rods degrade far more rapidly (500 years as opposed to more than 1 million) but storage is still an issue. Ideally, storage for 500 years of radioactive materials should not be left to subsequent generations to deal with, an I feel a mix of renewables is a far better option. They may however be an option worth exploring for nations with scarce renewable resources and extremely large populations. A first world China powered by Thorium reactors, for example, is far preferable to such powered on coal. Thorium also may be the answer to Japan's energy future, Japan is a country that will always suffer abundant earthquakes and tsunamis, a form of high yield energy production without a risk of meltdown seems ideal for that country with such a large population concentrated in such a small area.

[atuanui]

more info:

http://dickdestiny.com/blog1/2011/03...e-good-source/