Nuclear Power debate.

[RamesesII]

Well as part of the CO2 emission schemes going on every where currently in Australia debates on Nuclear power plants is rising to the surface again, should we have one or do we stick with coal and gas, none of our politicians want to touch the subject because it is a catch 22 or they are damned if they do or damned if they don't.

Yes a nuclear power plant has no CO2 emissions but what about the nuclear waste which has and astronomical half life, and that's what the big toss up is do we pollute the air with carbon dioxide or do we create heaps of dangerous waste.

I also think it is ironic that Australia has 23% of the worlds uranium deposits and is the second largest producer of uranium as well yet we have no nuclear power plant.

Anywho discuss.

[midgetbob]

We just need to add in more renewable energy sources.

Wind Turbines power 20% of Denmark's grid. Adding in hydropowered grids ( which is 20% of the WORLD'S grid) and solar powered grids you could take a large chunk of the worry out of the problem.

Can we fully nix coal / nuclear plants? No; not currently. Eventually however.

I'm just waiting for some 3rd World Nation scientist to stumble across cold fusion; then an interesting predicament would happen: Does (s)he use his discovery to free the world from fossil fuel dependency? Or does (s)he horde and become a new world power by selling power to countries creating a huge militant conglomerate to protect themselves?

[Sasquatch]

Nuclear power is one of the cheapest, safest (when done correctly), most efficient methods of electricity production known to exist today, and we're foolish for being too afraid to take advantage of it.

All too many people think that if a nuclear power plant has any problems, it'll blow up like an atomic bomb. No. That's just not how it works. That's why it's called a "meltdown" instead of a "blowup".

And spent Uranium beads are processed and encased so that nothing can ever get in or out, then buried far below the water table.

So the only by-products of nuclear energy are rods of pellets that are buried hundreds of feet underground and encased in tombs even Indiana Jones couldn't get into ... and steam. Water vapor.

I mean, we can keep moving forward. Eventually, we'll have to get off of fossil fuels. We've got wind, solar, tidal, hydro, and a few other methods to go to -- why not start now, if it's cheaper?

And nuclear power is definitely cheaper.

[smurphy]

I cant really see an alternative to nuclear power. The only alternative when fossil fuels run out are the renewable sources and these arent as environmentally friendly as they appear. To build hydroelectric dams thousands of farmable acres will have to be flooded when the reservoir is formed and windfarms are an aesthetic scar on beautiful landscapes going on dozens of miles. Lets hope the technology behind offshore windfarms is soon developed to offset the reliance on nuclear power, but that is unlikely given the economic circumstances.

[Alpha]

I'm in two minds. I acknowledge the advantages of it, but I think the disadvantages are too dire.

Nuclear power is incredibly expensive, albeit indirectly. Once operational, it does not take much to run. However, the construction is prohibitively expensive, and nuclear power plants cannot be run indefinitely. Decommissioning of nuclear power plants costs more than the cost of construction. A lot of money has to be made to make them profitable.

Nuclear power plants emit less radiation than coal-fired power plants. However, if things go wrong, they go wrong. Modern technology renders them very safe, but the potential for another Chernobyl is inescapable.

Plutonium is poisonous. I'm not sure what you mean by "burying it below the water table", Sassy, as the water table is from the bedrock up to the top of the water table. I'm at a loss to see how you could bury something in bedrock, let alone keep water out of it. It's best buried in a desert. Or not produced at all (assuming reasonable alternate sources of energy). Or, better yet, using breeder reactors. However, these remain even more expensive than conventional nuclear power plants; remember, the cost does not come from operation, but from construction and decommissioning.

Also, proliferation of nuclear power will aid in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Both North Korea and Iran are probably developing weapons-grade plutonium, through the process of nuclear energy production. More and more countries could conceivably do the same.

Nuclear power plants rely on large amounts of water, which is why, Rameses, Australia has not built nuclear power plants, despite abundant uranium.

What is important when considering the inevitable transition away from fossil fuels is energy conservation and efficiency. That is, using less energy, and using energy more efficiently. Rather than only focussing on a new source of energy, these factors must be considered.

Ultimately, I believe that nuclear energy is useful only as a transition to other forms of renewable energy.

[OnOneRyder]

Off-shore wind farming is likely to become the dominant player in renewable energy. Mainly because there's so much potential for growth as there's A LOT of area available, and much of the infrastructure using large amounts of electricity is next to large bodies of water.The problem is the funding, powering a small area with a population in the millions requires immense amounts of turbines. There needs to be a dominant player who looks at this and risks their position and supports this. It's going to be started most likely by private industry taking a gamble and trying to capitalize on providing clean energry. Honestly I for one wouldn't mind my taxes going up a few hundred dollars a year if I was confident it was going towards providing this, however a large portion of the population will only see fewer numbers in their bank account without accepting the fact this change is necessary.

[midgetbob]

Most people's long term vision is clouded by short term setbacks. A renewable energy plan is required for the entire world; granted we wont run out of fossil fuels in the next 10 years or anything, but the time is coming.

Personally, I could care less if there are turbines are dispersed among scenic sites and landscapes. You get a choice: 1) Lights, heat, cooking meals, food preservation etc etc or 2) Accepting that a windmill is on the hill. Personally, I like the look of them. The added benefit that they're better for the environment and keeping me nice and toasty with the lights on and a movie playing? Even better.

Offshore Windfarms are going to be a monument to success once they're feasible. Granted, I agree that it's more then likely going to be the private sector that does it... and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the oil companies don't try converting some of their oil derries spread about the oceans and seas.

As I'm not overly knowledgeable in the ocean currents (go mid-west....... ugh), I have always wondered how we could tap into the natural power of the currents without disrupting wildlife.

Until the renewable energy alternative comes about, nuclear isn't too bad of an idea. It is "fairly" safe. Only 11 Meltdowns have been recorded, the last being in 1986 (**EDIT** not '77). That's 11 out of teh 436 plants world wide in use (as of 1-1-2010) with another 56 being constructed.

Can another Chernobyl happen? Another 3-Mile Island? Of course... same chance of anything happening again. Fail-Safes for some reason always fail.

[loaf]

Nuclear power rules. Can't wait for some reactor to blow up so I can live my life in a new Zone like in Ukraine.

Meh I dunno, has it's ups and downs. After the Prypiat (spelling) Nuclear Plant incident it makes it looks like a bad idea. I would think maybe in like another 20-50 years it will be better.

[Tiffany]

Prypiat happened in 1986. Sad as it was, our technologies have advanced since then.

We have two nuclear power plant here in Ontario: Darlington Nuclear Power Plant and the Pickering Nuclear Power Plant. We use the CANDU reactors, which by safety standards are the safest in the world.

While I think that Nuclear Power is good for the here and now, I personally would like to see renewable resources. Wind turbines and hydroelectric would be great, although even they have some environmental impact. Personally, since Australia doesn't have any nuclear plants to begin with, it seems like a waste of money (IMO) to sink the required money into building something, when later on they're going to have to reinvest anyways.

I say start now with renewable resources. But, I am 100% ignorant of resources in Australia. Here we have places like Niagara Falls for hydro-electric power.


Forgive my link-heavy post.

[midgetbob]

Indeed, the last 24 years have advanced Nuclear reactors quite significantly.

I'd say building a nuclear plant would be a quick short-term investment since they last 50 years on average (up to 70 on the high end), however with a pricetag in the billions and 2-6 year buildtime, with no immediate benefit other then construction jobs.

This might be a suitable solution for a conglomerate of 3rd world nations wanting to jump onto the "save the earth" bandwagon in order to receive praise (and money) from more weathly nations. This might allow a minor recovery in some of the more poorer districts in Africa... however, there seems more important infrastructure to build... but then comes around the catch 22: schools and hospitals etc require power.

In the end, I think renewable energy source will be forthcoming fairly soon. I also think it will end up being expensive, but governments will be spending tons of money to help these companies start out... with arguements against it, mostly from the outcry of uninformed citizens. Everyone worried about the bottom line on their bank account... that few hundred dollars a year is more important to them.

[RamesesII]

We just need to add in more renewable energy sources.

Wind Turbines power 20% of Denmark's grid. Adding in hydropowered grids ( which is 20% of the WORLD'S grid) and solar powered grids you could take a large chunk of the worry out of the problem.

Can we fully nix coal / nuclear plants? No; not currently. Eventually however.

I'm just waiting for some 3rd World Nation scientist to stumble across cold fusion; then an interesting predicament would happen: Does (s)he use his discovery to free the world from fossil fuel dependency? Or does (s)he horde and become a new world power by selling power to countries creating a huge militant conglomerate to protect themselves?

Wind power is good but the amount of turbines you need and the area needed is ridiculous besides which what if you have no wind.

Nuclear power is one of the cheapest, safest (when done correctly), most efficient methods of electricity production known to exist today, and we're foolish for being too afraid to take advantage of it.

This I also know and acknowledge you are 100% correct it is more efficient than others and on a par par with fossil fuels if you looked at equal amounts nuclear power more for longer than fossil.

[Alpha]

The real issue is that we are not only talking about a change to a different generation of electricity, but energy in general.

Our cars are fueled by fossil fuels. We are already producing a lot of renewable electricity (at least, my country is), but this isn't easily transferable to such things as cars. We need a huge infrastructural adjustment, and we can't rely on the public or private sectors alone to effect such change.

Personally, I hope that hydrogen fuel cell technology get's it's a into g.

[midgetbob]

They new car designs released at the Chicago Auto Show shows a lot of promise, including the new Kia Ray (OMFG KIA!?). I hope they're able to make this affordable and mass produced.

Few facts on it:
- As a plug-in hybrid, Ray is designed to reach driving distances of more than 50 miles using its electric motor on a single charge, and has a fuel economy rating of more than 202 miles per gallon, and has a total range of 746 miles

- powered by an all-aluminum 153-horsepower Gasoline Direct Injected (GDI) 1.4-liter engine



Car technology is quickly advancing to levels of greatly reducing fossil fuel requirements (202 miles to the gallon? yes please!)

Regular technology for plants and the infrastructure needed to implement them aren't far off either. While implementing anything new is going to be bottom line breaking, it's not much different then the construction of any of our current facilities. Most of the money would end up being in R&D... after the initial construction takes place and the technology proven (say 5 - 25 years depending on what the outcry of pro-fossil fuel advocates can get heard by uber conservatives), the price tag will start sliding down and make it more economical for more implementations to take place.

Even if one solar farm is only able to put out 30% power of a coal plant, I'd rather have 3 farms creating renewable energy with little to no impact on the environment (other then the initial construction, destroyed ecosystems etc) then the polluting coal plants. You could even start replacing current defunct plants into the new ones to save on new construction damage to the wilderness.

[bahamuts heir]

Nuclear power is one of the cheapest, safest (when done correctly), most efficient methods of electricity production known to exist today, and we're foolish for being too afraid to take advantage of it.

All too many people think that if a nuclear power plant has any problems, it'll blow up like an atomic bomb. No. That's just not how it works. That's why it's called a "meltdown" instead of a "blowup".

And spent Uranium beads are processed and encased so that nothing can ever get in or out, then buried far below the water table.

So the only by-products of nuclear energy are rods of pellets that are buried hundreds of feet underground and encased in tombs even Indiana Jones couldn't get into ... and steam. Water vapor.

I mean, we can keep moving forward. Eventually, we'll have to get off of fossil fuels. We've got wind, solar, tidal, hydro, and a few other methods to go to -- why not start now, if it's cheaper?

And nuclear power is definitely cheaper.

If that's true then let up tops do their crap and if they get themselves killed we know not to do it again

[warned post]

[Clint]

I'm not a fan of nuclear power, and I'll tell you why. I live across the river from Three Mile Island, which holds one of the most controversial nuclear power plants in the world. In 1979 there was a partial meltdown, and many people got sick with at least a Seivert of radiation poisoning, even though the government denied it in an attempt to save face. Last year there was an "incident," as news reports called it, which means that radiation leaked out. If these pieces of crap are leaking radiation, they can't be safe.

Plus the crap they're putting underground from the nuclear reactors isn't too safe, either. In the former Soviet Union, there's this lake; Lake Karachay, located not to far from a nuclear waste storage facility. Anyway, the lake dried up, and winds blew nuclear waste into the lake's sediment. Now it is the most polluted and most radioactive place in the world. The point I'm trying to make is that radiation travels. If there is a fault within the caverns that hold the rods from nuclear reactors containing high amounts of radioactivity, then that radiation could very well manage to leak into the ground water table and systematically affect the entire world.

Nuclear power is not safe, no matter how many times the government and their so-called "experts" try to tell us otherwise. Nuclear waste radiation has too long of a half-life to be safely disposed of, and therefore, should have never been used in the first place.

[midgetbob]

Would be interesting to see if we couldn't move the nuclear waste to a safer location... with the "cheapness" of sending satellites into space, a one way ticket to the moon would solve a lot of the radiation problems. Granted, a permanent facility on the moon to make this much more "organized" would be an incredible feat and a great step towards the exploration of one of man's last frontiers... simply launching them at a crater would work too

[GHOSTED]

On the topic of moving the nuclear waste. I recently saw a video about some organization known as " Pangaea " who are working on a way to stabilize and " recycle " the nuclear waste...I believed they mentioned using areas of Australia. They plan(ed) on building storage bases in the ground and filling it with containers of the Waste...Seems like a good idea seeing as the area they picked has no tectonic action and it extremely dry, far from civilization. Hopefully their idea will work ( if we need it )

[Tiffany]

On the topic of moving the nuclear waste. I recently saw a video about some organization known as " Pangaea " who are working on a way to stabilize and " recycle " the nuclear waste...I believed they mentioned using areas of Australia. They plan(ed) on building storage bases in the ground and filling it with containers of the Waste...Seems like a good idea seeing as the area they picked has no tectonic action and it extremely dry, far from civilization. Hopefully their idea will work ( if we need it )

I'm not sure if Australia would want that. Even if it was their own waste they were producing in the country. On a smaller scale, something like that was going to happen here. Toronto was running out of room for their garbage and and proposed using one of our areas as a new dumping site. I can assure you people rallied against that like no tomorrow.

[GHOSTED]

I just had the idea of building a massive storage dome to host all the Waste...one for each country, Of course we will have to share...Build the dome on an island who's location is far from most civilizations...Some place that won't become a field trip for 4th grade science classes like most Waste facilities have lol

[Martin]

Nuclear wastage is a serious issue and not to be taken lightly. Radioactive isotopes such as Uranium-238, which is used in most common nuclear fission reactors as fuel has an average half life of 4.5 billion years roughly. Granted though this is naturally occuring in smaller doses but when used in reactors the concentration of it is much higher. In the event of a meltdown it's lethality is devastatingly high.

Even when refined into weapons or fuel-grade Plutonium 239, a more common isotope - it still has a incredibly slow rate of decay of about 24 thousand years. Simply burying these underground is not an option. Blasting it into space is also naive. If we are going to use nuclear as a practical future energy option then we have a responsibility to ensure we can dispose of it's wastage efficiently, fairly and with minimum impact to the environment.

[midgetbob]

Blasting it into space is also naive. If we are going to use nuclear as a practical future energy option then we have a responsibility to ensure we can dispose of it's wastage efficiently, fairly and with minimum impact to the environment.

Which makes me think my off hand remark about the moon as a waste storage spot isn't too bad of an idea. The moon is just a hunk of rock, so the damage to the environment is not a factor at all. The only risks being taken would be company men willing to work on a moon storage facility. I don't think there is really a safe way to store such radioactive materials (along with other wastes that are super hazardous to the environment) on earth with out some kind of leaking happening.

[Heartless Angel]

Nuclear Power is by far the best energy solution we have at the moment. It's cheap, and extremely effective. And very safe with current technology. I took a Nuclear Science and Energy class my senior year, taught by a guy who works at Oakridge National Lab. Our class actually made Nuclear News for being the first high school nuclear science course in the States taught by someone in the field. This class made me decide to go into Nuclear Engineering as a profession, so this is a subject I'm passionate about.

First I'll talk about cost. A SINGLE Uranium Fuel pellet is the energy equivalent of 1 ton of coal, 2.5 tons of wood, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, or 3.5 42 gallon barrels of oil. And Uranium is barely 100$ a pound. That means a fuel pellet is about 1.50$. 1.50$ for 3 and a half barells of oil? Sounds like a pretty awesome price to me. And it gets better. If the price of , let's say natural gas doubled: The price of power from a natural gas power plant would go up about 40% assuming they maintained the same profit margin. Assuming the cost of Uranium doubles, the cost of nuclear energy would go up about 5%, just because such a small ammount of it is used in relation to the power it puts out.

Safety. Everyone's big concern with Nuclear power. People like to talk about Chernobyl all the time in this debate, so I'll start out by saying that argument is idiotic. I could just as easily say cars are unsafe now based on the performance of the Ford Model T. Believe it or not, we have made some improvements to technology since 1986. Every Nuclear Power plant operating currently is much safer than Chernobyl was. They've got redunandant systems with redundant backups for redundant backups. If i recall, ours has 6 redundant systems. Meaning They'd need 7 complete system failures to be in danger. The one near my house draws power for its main systems from itself, and 2 other sources for redundant systems, so a power failure wouldn't even cause problems. The building and containment building are both rated with withstand an F-3 tornado or a 7.0 Earthquake with no danger of a nuclear disaster at all. Not to mention All the systems can be shut down completely in a few minutes. They do alot of radiation testing on surrounding areas for safety reasons. You take in more radiation eating a banana than you would living next door to our Nuclear plant for a year. The containment is excellent.

Alternatives. People Love to talk about alternative enegy sources like hydroelectric and wind energy because it sounds cleaner than Nuclear. The energy itself from Hydro and Wind may not produce dangerous emissions, but producing the turbines and dams and all that crap does. And in terms of cost efficiency, most alternatives are terrible. A wind turbine, in it's entire lifetime of use, will probably not even pay for itself at current prodution costs. Not to mention they rewuire costly maintainance and ridiculously expensive replacements on the blades and turbines. Not to mention they eat space. The only alternative I really see as a long term solution is biodiesel from Algae. If someone gets a decent Algae farm going, (and really, the shit can grow damn near anywhere) we've got amazing power production potential, but it still can't hold a candle to nuclear energy. Though this is going to be the best solution for things like cars, since at the moment having a nuclear reactor under the hood just isn't plausible.

Further advancements. Nuclear is ALREADY this far ahead of any other means of making power we have. And it's still being developed further. The day a scientist figures out cold fusion is the day we never need to worry about energy again. Ever. And the semi-joke in the paragraph above about reactors in cars, that's only given current technology. If we keep making advancements, we very well may see the day hwere you just go buy a 1.50$ Uranium fuel pellet for your car and are good to go for several hundred, possibly thousands of miles. The possibilities are endless. You know that giant mass of burning hydrogen that keeps the planet warm? That thing runs on Nuclear fusion. And it puts out more power in a day than we use on earth in a year.

[RamesesII]

Thought I would pike this up again as there has been more interest sparked on the notion that Australia will inevitable go to nuclear power by 2020 to apparently stem and cut back our carbon emissions.

^This and a thought occurred to me when re reading some of these post that I long neglected and these events have intrigued me.

On an off hand estimate over 50 % of Australia is equal to or under sea level and with sea levels rising approximately 3mm each year funnily enough most of Australia's uranium mines and/or proposed mines/ documented deposits are located in the areas that would be affected by rising sea levels in maybe a distant future but nonetheless.
And that is just mentioning the mines, someones smart idea of burying nuclear waste is severely flawed when contemplating Australia.
Why do you think 50% of Australia is desert because of rising water tables pushing up salt deposits and that's not including the fact that Lake Eyre is Australia's drainage pan most water from Australia travels to the centre in some form and is deposited here ad when it isn't wet it is a great salt pan.
Putting nuclear waste in the desert below sea level where water drains and tables rise.

[Heartless Angel]

Just burying waste is generally a bad idea. I haven't heard of anyone actually suggeesting just throwing waste in a hole and covering it with dirt, there's generally some sort of containment unit that holds the waste which is then buried.

As for Fukishima, same story as every other nuclear disaster in history. The cause was not nuclear power, but human stupidity. They waited way too long to shut things down, and it cost them, and everyone anywhere near them. In addition, that plants design was flawed, and not up to date with the most current knowledge and safety concerns for a nuclear plant. And really, when you compare nuclear to other energy sources in terms of how many people have lost their lives to it, nuclear energy still comes out smelling like a rose. Per terawatt hour of energy produced, nuclear energy has killed .04 people. Yes, you read that number correctly, four hundredths of a person per terawatt hour. This compared to 161 people for coal worldwide (278 in China, only 15 in the US, both hundreds of times more than are killed by nuclear), 36 for oil, 4 for natural gas, 12 for bio fuel and 12 for peat (seriously, more people find a way to kill themselves with peat than nuclear energy <.<), .44 for solar, .15 for wind and .1 for hydroelectric. Yeah, the second safest on the list is still more than twice as bad as nuclear.

As with anything else, the media exaggerates the negatives of everything. They don't tell you about the hundreds of nuclear plants worldwide providing, safe, clean, and cost effective energy to homes and not causing any problems, they tell you about the three problems that occurred, all as a result of human error, in the past fifty years.