A future for nuclear power In NSW/Australia? (1 Viewer)

[tempco]

And as there is no link to the article & i cbf googling for it, the credentials of this author cannot be ascertained.

get over it... most of the points he made are widely known or logical anyway.

Also if im not mistaken the Readers Digest is not a academic publication or a journal, but a magazine aimed at the general public

haha yeh, it is aimed for the general public. the funny thing is... you seem to have complete trust in what politicians have said in the first post. assuming you read the first post. and last time i checked the newspapers were aimed at the general public.

The thing that most people assume about nuclear power is that the plants can blow up like a nuclear weapon, but in actual fact they can't. They can leak radiation like at Chernobyl, which is the bigest risk they run, but becuase nuclear power plants only have a core consistency of 5% (as compared to 100% in a nucler warhead), they can't blow up. Even a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier only has a core consistency of 50%, so it's fairly safe.

The only problem is that when something goes wrong, it really goes wrong ...

i would think that the benefits outweigh the risks here.

safety of nuclear power reactors

quick summary of that link:

• From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials.
• There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. One was contained and the other had no provision for containment.
• These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 11 000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries.
• The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the likelihood and consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks.
• The operation of many nuclear reactors in the former Eastern Bloc is of international concern, and a program of international assistance is helping to improve their safety.

 

[Xayma]

do you even know why the chernobyl disaster happened? it was mainly caused by human error, and bad design of the actual power plant. you may or may not have realised that we have some what progressed from nuclear power plants of 1986 (i know it's a stretch, but i think it's safe to say.. could someone double check on this please?)

Slightly more then that.

They were testing numerous overload procedures. In order to do this they cut off nearly all fail safes which would've stopped the reaction.

The powerplant design wasn't bad as such but it was an older style design which due to the circumstances (which wouldnt have happened had the failsafes remained) contributed to the cause. Also they overloaded the powerplant outside of the original test parameters due to no reaction.

Then the neutron absorbing rods took too long to be inserted in (they are now normally held with electromagnets, power stops, rods fall in and stop the reaction) also the rods themselves were of a bad design.

It isn't the design that was all that bad (although more efficient and "safer" designs have been made [ones that are safer with all fail safes overridden]) but safety procedures have been improved so has testing procedures.

 

[Korn]

get over it... most of the points he made are widely known or logical anyway.



haha yeh, it is aimed for the general public. the funny thing is... you seem to have complete trust in what politicians have said in the first post. assuming you read the first post. and last time i checked the newspapers were aimed at the general public.



i would think that the benefits outweigh the risks here.

safety of nuclear power reactors

quick summary of that link:

• From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials.
• There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. One was contained and the other had no provision for containment.
• These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 11 000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries.
• The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the likelihood and consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks.
• The operation of many nuclear reactors in the former Eastern Bloc is of international concern, and a program of international assistance is helping to improve their safety.

Were do you get the idea that my opinion is formed by the politicians or the media? btw that link is a .com & it uses these sources as references, which seem to be reliable (if they arent plz correct me):
SOURCES

IAEA, 1993, IAEA Yearbook 1993
ANSTO, 1994, The Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors, Nuclear Services Section Background Paper
Nuclear Energy Institute, Source Book, 1995
OECD NEA, 1995, Chernobyl Ten Years On.
Nuclear Engineering International, August 1999
Twilley R C 2002, Framatome ANP's SWR1000 reactor design, Nuclear News, Sept.
EPRI Dec 2002 report on NEI web site - www.nei.org.

 

[tempco]

Slightly more then that.

They were testing numerous overload procedures. In order to do this they cut off nearly all fail safes which would've stopped the reaction.

The powerplant design wasn't bad as such but it was an older style design which due to the circumstances (which wouldnt have happened had the failsafes remained) contributed to the cause. Also they overloaded the powerplant outside of the original test parameters due to no reaction.

Then the neutron absorbing rods took too long to be inserted in (they are now normally held with electromagnets, power stops, rods fall in and stop the reaction) also the rods themselves were of a bad design.

It isn't the design that was all that bad (although more efficient and "safer" designs have been made [ones that are safer with all fail safes overridden]) but safety procedures have been improved so has testing procedures.

my bad. my limited knowledge of chernobyl is based on zero hour.

@korn - on the fact that you didn't question the credentials of bob carr.

 

[Korn]

my bad. my limited knowledge of chernobyl is based on zero hour.

@korn - on the fact that you didn't question the credentials of bob carr.

I dont take the word of any pollie

 

[tempco]

that's good to know. moving right on...

 

[ohne]

I believe nuclear power is the only sensible option for electricity in the future in NSW. It produces no greenhouse gas emmisions. Coal produces the most of any form of power. If we gradually replace coal with nuclear we will reduce our greenhouse gas emmisions substantially.

Renewable power with the exception (to some degree) of hydro just aren't anywhere near cost competetive. We just can't go on building more and more fossil fuel power stations.

A modern nuclear power station will actually emit less radiation than a coal fired power station. Past incidents where largely a result of poor reactor design/maintenance. Technology has moved on since then. In any case, any risks associated with nuclear power are insignificant next to the dangers of global warming.

 

[slip]

my mate who goes up to one of the major coal power stations in nsw because of his scholarship has been told that there will be a nuclear power station in nsw with in the next 15 years.

i dont have anything against nuclear power but i think that we should still look at other solutions. in terms of large scale power production i think GEOTHERMAL is a very good answer.

however we should be looking at reducing our need for electricity, through smart designs. csiro has done some great work in this area.

 

[HotShot]

yessss!!!!!!!!!111
if australia has nukes i am gonna steal them and nukje america to bits!!!!!
yeah!

 

[leetom]

It is becoming increasingly obvious that nuclear power is the only viable and sensible alternative. The environmentalist groups that oppose nuclear power do seem to be quite rediculous in their opposition, because it is either an embrace of nuclear or maintaining use of fossil fuels.

The need to phase out the use of fossil fuels, however long it takes and however much it costs, is paramount if we are truly interested in preserving ourselves and our world.

The government should leave the task of erecting modern nuclear power plants to a new Ministry, the Ministry of Nuclear Power, headed by a scientifically knowledgeable politician, who is in charge of a massive workforce of dedicated technocrats who serve only to please. The politicians should leave this issue to the science men, not interfering, just bestowing onto them bottomless funding to further the nuclear cause.

 

[slip]

uh i dunno if that post was sarcastic or just stupid

politicians are elected, and as such it is doubtful that a person with a good knowledge of nuclear power would be eleceted. secondly people with exact know how dont need to be elected, part of leadership is delegating activities to people with the know how. i would propose a department of energy to recommend the actions the government should take.

i think it is a very narrow mind person who says that nuclear power is the only solution. i think research and developement of technologies like geothermal, solar, wind and tidal still needs to be undertaken. At some point in the future solar and wind will become cheaper and more affordable. geothermal is a very good solution as i have already said. I think there would be many other good solutions if we put the time into looking.

 

[Slidey]

Bah. We don't need nuclear.

We need more investment in hot dry rock energy, solar hydrogen and wind farms.

 

[leetom]

uh i dunno if that post was sarcastic or just stupid

politicians are elected, and as such it is doubtful that a person with a good knowledge of nuclear power would be eleceted. secondly people with exact know how dont need to be elected, part of leadership is delegating activities to people with the know how. i would propose a department of energy to recommend the actions the government should take.

i think it is a very narrow mind person who says that nuclear power is the only solution. i think research and developement of technologies like geothermal, solar, wind and tidal still needs to be undertaken. At some point in the future solar and wind will become cheaper and more affordable. geothermal is a very good solution as i have already said. I think there would be many other good solutions if we put the time into looking.

My posts are never stupid. My posts, at least, however uninformed they could be, strive to make use of basic punctuation.

Politicians are not elected for their specific portfolios, at least not in Australia. They are appointed by the Cabinet bosses. I suppose we could establish some sort of body similar to the CSIRO but dealing specifically with things of a nuclear nature. I would still prefer the creation of a Ministry specific to the nuclear push, because an ambitious Prime Minister could easily keep on eye over it, all that remains is the election of an ambitious Prime Minister.

I am not a science person. I do not know of geothermal, the idea of sending huge amounts of water down into the earth in order to heat it sounds like a pipedream to me. Other minor technologies like solar and wind power can only hope to meet the needs of smaller, perhaps rural only areas. They cannot, from what I have read, be expected to cater to the demands of a city.

 

[slip]

id rather be informed then use proper punctuation. its a fucking forum, as long as people can read what you write punctuation wont mean much, its not offical document, an assesment or even a job application... i could care less.

and geothermal is not a dream trust me ive done a huge assignment on it recently. firstly of all most of the technology is already developed...we pump oil out of the ground you dont think we can pump water in and out?

secondly its not really that new, wet geothermal is already used in many places around the world, and dry geothermal has actually been used since the begin of the 20th century in italy and if increasingly common in america.

i repeat, it is very narrow minded to think nuclear is the only solution and to go as far as to make a portfolio just for nuclear. there are many issues surrounding energy in australia, i think we would be better served with an energy portfolio that would deal not only with the set up of new infastructure but the abolishment of old infastructure, and it could also look at what we do with energy.

and we dont need a new body looking at enery, csiro is already doing the work, and i think it would far more efficient to keep research and developement centralised (even thou it is already spread between csiro, unis, and private companies) not much research and developement is needed for nuclear its already developed and wont get cheaper. Technology such as solar, wind, geothermal will get cheaper with research and developement.

a geothermal power plant is being built in south australia right now, which is one more then nuclear has in the whole of australia. one geothermal power plant can supply all of nsw energy requirements for 30years, so we would only need 4 or 5 power plants to provide the whole nation.

it depends how you look at solar and wind, i think we should really be looking at intergrated systems where solar and wind play a part in the energy production. there are more types of solar then you would know, some are becoming increasing more effective.

the other thing is who says all power production should be centralised? there is the distinct possibility that big business (many already invest in this) and eventually average citizens should produce alot of there own energy. this can be done simply by placing solar power systems on the roofs of major buildings.

finally if now of that does anything i suggest we place turbines in our sewage lines that spin a generate and create energy. we can call it excretea energy or something to that effect.

 

[Rafy]

I am completely for Nuclear power in Australia. It is the way to go. It is relatively clean for the enviroment with no emmissions travelling to the atmosphere. Its only waste product can be stored underground, and if the appropriate measures are taken, should cause no harm to the enviroment.

Australia controlled about 40% of the world's supply of Uranium. Why not use it? It delivers a clean, relaible flow of energy.


And for those who point to chernobyl, well Nuclear technology has progressed beyond what cash strapped russia could build 20 years ago. Do you really think Australia would build a defective soviet era plant here? come on, Australia would take the appropriate measures to prevent such disasters.

 

[slip]

i reckon we could derive energy from the amoubt of people jumping on the bandwagon. and im sure it would be a clean green solution.

Geothermal has zero emmisions, and no harful waste, is cheaper then nuclear power. Australia is the perfect environment. Plus if we use geothermal we can export uranium, which will strengthen the economy, thus making geothermal cheaper again, where as using the uranium decreases exports increasing the cost of nuclear.

 

[jm1234567890]

A nuclear reactor will last us until a fusion reactor is designed and then we will have almost limitless energy.

There are alot of nuclear reactors in the world, and have there been any problems at all recently? I think the technology is mature enough for you not to worry about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

I'm willing to take the risk, we can't keep selling off our large uranium stores.

 

[jumb]

Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest sources, the world would benefit if there were more nuclear power plants.

 

[slip]

I'm willing to take the risk, we can't keep selling off our large uranium stores.

why cant we keep sellin off our large uranium stores.

simple fact of economics - exports strengthen the economy

uranium (the basis for nuclear power) may be exported

hot dry rock (the basis for geothermal, probably the best alternate) can not be exported.

so why not use uranium to strengthen our economy and geothermal as an environmentally friendly and sustainable method of producing electricity?

the other thing is everyone here is forgetting where we get uranium from. that is already highly controversial. we probably shouldnt be mining it at all.

 

[samuelblayden]

I do it is going to ruin our enviroment