Nuclear power for Vic.

[Tiger74]

against nuclear and not for the obvious reason

there is a MASSIVE growth in demand for uranium at the moment, and with a big ramp up of plants coming online in upcoming years this means one thing, growing strong demand for uranium

why is this an issue? some estimates have world supplies possibly lasting only 20-40 years if current growth rates continue

why bother subsidizing plants and opening the door for waste to be stored in Oz for a short to medium term option?

focus on clean coal, solar, hot rocks, and other possibilities before this

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

against nuclear and not for the obvious reason

there is a MASSIVE growth in demand for uranium at the moment, and with a big ramp up of plants coming online in upcoming years this means one thing, growing strong demand for uranium

why is this an issue? some estimates have world supplies possibly lasting only 20-40 years if current growth rates continue

why bother subsidizing plants and opening the door for waste to be stored in Oz for a short to medium term option?

focus on clean coal, solar, hot rocks, and other possibilities before this

I have heard the same thing T74. Replacement of current fossil fuel driven power generation with nuclear would exhaust uranium supplies within 20 years. Doesn't seem worth the investment and generation of high level radioactive waste for such a short term fix.

Concentrate on other solutions I say.

 

[Disco08]

Have you (or anyone else) seen the doco on Nat Geo about the new types of clean power? Holland has massive offshore wind farms. They, and other countries, take advantage of tidal flows to create power. Advanced solar energy supplies are being used increasingly in many countries. Why can't Australia follow these leads given the massive amount of space, wind, sun and tides we have to take advantage of?

Also saw a doco on atomic fusion power, which is entirely clean (no nuclear waste because atoms are fused together not split apart) and billions of times more efficient than contemporary methods. Scientists say this method is about 50 years away from being used for mainstream needs.

 

[Tiger74]

well said disco and panthera :clap

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

The third generation plants are certainly much safer.

My suggestion is we build an enormous nuclear plant, but it is actually just a fake.

Gives the terrorists something to blow up, keeps everything else safe.

Maybe it will even give off red smoke when it explodes

 

[Rosy]

I wonder how the 12 (37.5%) for 18 (56.3%) against ratio would be had this poll been started this week following the dire situation in Japan.

 

[Baloo]

I'm still pro nuclear energy. Its the way of the future.

 

[pahoffm]

Phantom,

With our growing population, will there be enough 'natural' resources to harness, into the future?

Hi Liverpool,

Great question. Just noticed it.

I'm just about to go out for the day but I promise to return to such a fascinating question.

 

[Rosy]

I am still against it. Nuclear energy comes with massive global risk if things go wrong. From my uneducated point of view other sources seem more viable and a whole lot safer. Chernobyl how can we forget. Japan fingers crossed everyone.

 

[Tigers of Old]

All for it so long as you're not on the fault line.

It's come a long way since the days of Chernobyl.

 

[evo]

It hasn't changed my mind. It has probably made it all the more unlikely that we won't move towards nuclear power generation though. It gives the against crowd ammunition.

Frankly I can't see how so many people can be so vocally concerned about Co2 emissions but in the next breath be against nuclear generation.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

It hasn't changed my mind. It has probably made it all the more unlikely that we won't move towards nuclear power generation though. It gives the against crowd ammunition.

Frankly I can't see how so many people can be so vocally concerned about Co2 emissions but in the next breath be against nuclear generation.

I guess some see it as robbing Peter to pay Paul? Nuclear certainly has its problems, namely in long term sourcing of fissionable material and storage of waste. There are other issues such as the one we are witnessing currently. With those problems should we invest huge amounts of money in something that isn't sustainable long term and is more of a stop-gap measure (with its own inherent problems)?

As far as I understand it, nuclear is the only real viable alternative to fossil fuels at the moment (I am happy to be corrected) so it really requires weighing up the risk/benefits of the two while continuing to invest in research for greener, more sustainable alternatives.

 

[Giardiasis]

Frankly I can't see how so many people can be so vocally concerned about Co2 emissions but in the next breath be against nuclear generation.

Both lead to productivity.

 

[mld]

The potential of the thorium fuel cycle is fascinating.

 

[evo]

I guess some see it as robbing Peter to pay Paul? Nuclear certainly has its problems, namely in long term sourcing of fissionable material and storage of waste. There are other issues such as the one we are witnessing currently. With those problems should we invest huge amounts of money in something that isn't sustainable long term and is more of a stop-gap measure (with its own inherent problems)?

As far as I understand it, nuclear is the only real viable alternative to fossil fuels at the moment (I am happy to be corrected) so it really requires weighing up the risk/benefits of the two while continuing to invest in research for greener, more sustainable alternatives.

The waste is certainly a problem but lets face it countries like Germany and France seemed to have copped safely for a long time. It's only during a mishap that people take notice of nuclear energy generation.

I don't want to get in a big debate about it, but I don't think you are right with yours and others 2007 posts about there only being a 20 year supply. The only reason there isn't vast "proven" amounts right now is because they've already found so much that they haven't bothered looking for more; and that traditionally it wasn't in great demand. That's the beauty of the stuff, it's not like coal- you only need bugger all to generate so much power.

The fact of the matter is that for the foreseeable future wind and solar aren't going to provide base- power. So if people are serious about reducing CO2 emmisions (which I doubt) then it is going to have to come from hydro, nuclear and perhaps some hot rocks.

Just putting a tax on carbon emissions is not going to actually "solve" the problem.

Loy Yang and Hazelwood are some of the dirtiest coal burning plants on earth. Are they going to get serious about trying to close it down, or not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station,_Victoria#CO2_emissions

The station was listed as the least carbon efficient power station in the world in a 2005 report by WWF Australia. The WWF reported that the power station produced 1.58 tonnes of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated in 2004 (official result was 1.55)[citation needed], which was a significant reduction of 6.6% from the 1996 levels of 1.66 Mt/TWh when the plant was privatised. This CO2 per megawatt-hour reduction is now over 10% based on performance to 2009.[12][citation needed]

With a 60% [glow=red,2,300]increase in power generation since 1996[/glow], Hazelwood now averages up to 16.0 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year (the second highest emitter in the Latrobe Valley), which is 3 % of Australia's total carbon dioxide emissions, and 9 % of Australia's total CO2 from electricity generation.[13]

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The waste is certainly a problem but lets face it countries like Germany and France seemed to have copped safely for a long time. It's only during a mishap that people take notice of nuclear energy generation.

I don't want to get in a big debate about it, but I don't think you are right with yours and others 2007 posts about there only being a 20 year supply. The only reason there isn't vast "proven" amounts right now is because they've already found so much that they haven't bothered looking for more; and that traditionally it wont be in great demand. That's the beauty of the stuff, it'ss not like coal- you only need bugger all to generate so much power.

The fact of the matter is that for the foreseeable future wind and solar aren't going to provide base- power. So if people are serious about reducing CO2 emmisions (which I doubt) then it is going to have to come from hydro, nuclear and perhaps some hot rocks.

Just putting a tax on carbon emissions is not going to actually "solve" the problem.

I agree with most of that. The 20 years figure I had cited was based on a theoretical complete shift to nuclear-powered energy - obviously just a hypothetical, but an illustration that nuclear is only really a stop-gap in the (very?) long term.

As for waste, I agree that it is the major problem, but I don't see France and Germany as particularly good examples as the waste generated leads to decay times measured in millions of years. I have serious doubts over the long term storage of such material and the long term stability of any methods and/or the societies that store such material (hard to get your head around such timeframes!). In the long term nuclear power will also have accidents from time to time, as we are currently witnessing - the consequences of these accidents can be very long term in nature. There is also the proliferation of weapons-grade material that an increase in nuclear-powered energy would cause.

I also agree that alternative fuels are going to have to replace fossil fuels if we are to reduce CO2 emissions. I can't see us reducing our energy demands, quite the opposite really. I guess the tax just makes those alternatives and their further development more financially attractive.

As an aside, do you doubt people's desire to reduce CO2 due to the inconvenience and cost such a step would cause when push comes to shove?

 

[evo]

As an aside, do you doubt people's desire to reduce CO2 due to the inconvenience and cost such a step would cause when push comes to shove?

Definitely - actions speak louder than words. Recent political events have also demonstrated it somewhat.

When there was only TALK of reducing emissions most people were all for it. But now it has become a political reality and people begin to realise it will actually cost them money the polls in favour have fallen substantially.

the actions of governments has also made me sceptical that there is any real will to do much. Copenhagen was a failure and Obama has backed right off- China isn't going to do bugger all for decades. Our own scheme is also a very watered down approach. Very little is actually being done to address how we will provide energy that doesn't use coal.

Why aren't wind generators built by the government popping up all across the coast and a more serious look into these thorium reactors for example. Seems to me that would be a more productive way of stimulating an economy than building primary school halls.

 

[Total Tiger]

I am still for it but this week's happenings in Japan has set it back by decades. Our politicians won't put their careers on the line for it.

 

[mld]

As an aside, do you doubt people's desire to reduce CO2 due to the inconvenience and cost such a step would cause when push comes to shove?

I certainly doubted the desire to reduce CO2 of the woman serving beer at the footy last week, when she refused to let me recycle my plastic cup.

 

[evo]

There's nothing worse than a beer lacking in CO2