Message boards :
Cafe SETI :
Nuclear Energy Debate
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
The Gas Giant Send message Joined: 22 Nov 01 Posts: 1904 Credit: 2,646,654 RAC: 0 |
With the global warming issues that are surrounding us and the desire to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, Australia is in the very early stages of a debate on whether or not we should head down the nuclear energy route. I was wondering if the cafe folks would like to put their 2c worth in. A little bit of background. Australia generates an extremely large proportion of its electricity requirements by burning coal - both brown and black. There is some hydro-electricity. Recently there has been a focus on wind generation and natural gas fired generation. Overall electricity wholesale pricing is around the A$30 to A$40 per MWhr level. We have no nuclear power generation. We have the worlds largest (or 2nd largest) deposits of uranium and it's alternative thorium. Go for it! ---------------------------- Paul (S@H1 8888) And proud of it! |
cdr100560 Send message Joined: 12 May 06 Posts: 681 Credit: 65,502 RAC: 0 |
What would be the downside? There has to be plenty of unoccupied land that would serve to keep it out of peoples back yards. It's clean, but does need a water source (for cooling and steam production for the turbines) Would that be a problem? The length of time for construction is a factor (several years) but reactor fuel lasts for awhile vs. the piles of coal needed for a coal fired plant. What are the future projected energy demands? (The cost vs. return factor) Nowadys there are enhanced security needs as well. <to get the ball rolling> |
Bill Price Send message Joined: 5 Jun 99 Posts: 73 Credit: 2,397,157 RAC: 5 |
For reference, read Waldo & Magic, Inc. by Robert Heinlein. Until such time as we can draw energy from alternate universes, it seems to be that nuclear energy, properly done, is the best alternative we have. I haven't looked to see if they've (the U.S. DoD) ever stated what the problem with the U.S.S. Thresher was (reactor meltdown? playing tag with a Russian sub?), but outside of that I think the U.S. Navy has never had a problem using nuclear power for their fleet. My belief is the problems we've all heard about (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) have more to do with private sector problems. I've thought for a long time we should do nuclear energy in a big way, and let the Navy run it. Or to quote Dennis Miller: "That's just my opinion; I could be wrong." |
David Stites Send message Joined: 22 Jul 99 Posts: 286 Credit: 10,113,361 RAC: 0 |
For reference, read Waldo & Magic, Inc. by Robert Heinlein. Until such time as we can draw energy from alternate universes, it seems to be that nuclear energy, properly done, is the best alternative we have. I haven't looked to see if they've (the U.S. DoD) ever stated what the problem with the U.S.S. Thresher was (reactor meltdown? playing tag with a Russian sub?), but outside of that I think the U.S. Navy has never had a problem using nuclear power for their fleet. My belief is the problems we've all heard about (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) have more to do with private sector problems. I've thought for a long time we should do nuclear energy in a big way, and let the Navy run it. I seem to remember reading something about nuclear power being simple in small reactors but the problems come in when they are scaled up. If true the best answer is to have lots of small ones all over the place. That would also cut down on transportation costs. Anybody know more about this? David Stites Pullman, WA USA |
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0 |
99% of nuclear waste can be safely recycled...alas, the enviiornmentalist lobby made it so that all of that wsste can only be 'safely' disposed of in salt mines and so forth....so much for recycling. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing! |
Lampros Send message Joined: 17 Jun 02 Posts: 279 Credit: 13,973,726 RAC: 0 |
99% of nuclear waste can be safely recycled...alas, the enviiornmentalist lobby made it so that all of that wsste can only be 'safely' disposed of in salt mines and so forth....so much for recycling. Hey Robert, would you care to elaborate about recycling? Not being snide, just interested. |
. Send message Joined: 14 May 06 Posts: 61 Credit: 22,809 RAC: 0 |
In South Africa we produce about 6% of our energy with nuclear power. The rest of out electricity is produced burning coal, which we have in abundance. Each has it's specific environmental problems. The more that individual countries use nuclear power, the more that are tempted to make nuclear weapons. My country had such weapons, but has dismantled them, and I hope that they will remain dismantled forever. |
tekwyzrd Send message Joined: 21 Nov 01 Posts: 767 Credit: 30,009 RAC: 0 |
For reference, read Waldo & Magic, Inc. by Robert Heinlein. Until such time as we can draw energy from alternate universes, it seems to be that nuclear energy, properly done, is the best alternative we have. I haven't looked to see if they've (the U.S. DoD) ever stated what the problem with the U.S.S. Thresher was (reactor meltdown? playing tag with a Russian sub?), but outside of that I think the U.S. Navy has never had a problem using nuclear power for their fleet. My belief is the problems we've all heard about (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) have more to do with private sector problems. I've thought for a long time we should do nuclear energy in a big way, and let the Navy run it. The problem with nuclear power in the hands of corporate interests is greed. If given a choice between safety and profit often safety concerns are overlooked. Just look at what happened at the Davis-Besse facility. The company that controls most of the electricity supplied to my area (First Energy) owns the Davis-Besse facility and the infamous Three Mile Island facility. It is the same company held responsible for the massive 2003 blackout that affected a large portion of the eastern US and part of Canada. I find it disturbing that First Energy has admitted that their investments in nuclear power have contributed to a loss of $40 Billion. Last year the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) gave the OK for First Energy to add charges to the bills of customers in Ohio for a total of $80 Billion to compensate them for their losses. There are major differences between Government controlled nuclear power and corporate controlled nuclear power. The government isn't driven by the demand for profit. There's no executives demanding bonuses. There's no investors complaining about low dividends. There's no stocks. Sure, the government answers to taxpayers but with the massive defense budget there's plenty of money to insure safety. I'm strongly opposed to nuclear power. There are safer, green alternatives to nuclear. They may not be as efficient but there's less potential for catastrophic accidents. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws. Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001) |
mikey Send message Joined: 17 Dec 99 Posts: 4215 Credit: 3,474,603 RAC: 0 |
There are major differences between Government controlled nuclear power and corporate controlled nuclear power. The government isn't driven by the demand for profit. There's no executives demanding bonuses. There's no investors complaining about low dividends. There's no stocks. Sure, the government answers to taxpayers but with the massive defense budget there's plenty of money to insure safety. TOTALLY agree, small companies have small budgets, Governments have "other" issues. I'm strongly opposed to nuclear power. There are safer, green alternatives to nuclear. They may not be as efficient but there's less potential for catastrophic accidents. The problems with this statement is that nothing else is as available longterm. Sure they will be less castrophic during an accident, but over the long term, coal, natural gas, etc ,etc, etc create many more issues that then have to be dealt with. Pollution for one. Burn coal, pollute the atmosphere for generations. Use nuclear energy, no long term outputs except energy. Except in accidents, then nuclear MUST be designed properly. Back to the government! |
tekwyzrd Send message Joined: 21 Nov 01 Posts: 767 Credit: 30,009 RAC: 0 |
There are major differences between Government controlled nuclear power and corporate controlled nuclear power. The government isn't driven by the demand for profit. There's no executives demanding bonuses. There's no investors complaining about low dividends. There's no stocks. Sure, the government answers to taxpayers but with the massive defense budget there's plenty of money to insure safety. There are massive green resources yet to be tapped. If I hit the big lotto jackpot (like that'll ever happen :( ) I'll be able to put my ideas to work. Until then, or until I at least have enough for a patent, I can't explain it or someone will steal my idea. It's happened before. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws. Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001) |
Ghery S. Pettit Send message Joined: 7 Nov 99 Posts: 325 Credit: 28,109,066 RAC: 82 |
For reference, read Waldo & Magic, Inc. by Robert Heinlein. Until such time as we can draw energy from alternate universes, it seems to be that nuclear energy, properly done, is the best alternative we have. I haven't looked to see if they've (the U.S. DoD) ever stated what the problem with the U.S.S. Thresher was (reactor meltdown? playing tag with a Russian sub?), but outside of that I think the U.S. Navy has never had a problem using nuclear power for their fleet. My belief is the problems we've all heard about (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) have more to do with private sector problems. I've thought for a long time we should do nuclear energy in a big way, and let the Navy run it. Thresher was lost to a flooding casualty in the aft machinery spaces. It was not a failure of the reactor plant. As far as radioactive waste from a plant is concerned, a coal fired plant releases more radioactive material into the general environment than a nuclear plant does over its lifetime due to the Carbon 14 in the coal. I'd much rather have a nuclear power plant in the area than a coal fired plant. One thing that would reduce the cost of nuclear power would be more realistic regulations. When I worked for the Navy in the late 70s we had a processing plant at the shipyard that would decontaminate water taken from the reactors we were refueling. The water that wasn't used to refill the plant had to be mixed with concrete and shipped to Nevada for disposal. This was in spite of the fact that the water was purer with less residual radioactivity than the water flowing by in the river. Go figure... |
Ophus Send message Joined: 10 Nov 99 Posts: 205 Credit: 1,577,356 RAC: 4 |
The long term anwser which should be viable in 40 years or less is fusion. The only waste you get is Helium and better yet, you can mix current nuclear waste in with the fuel which will get rid of that problem also. my $.02 worth |
John Clark Send message Joined: 29 Sep 99 Posts: 16515 Credit: 4,418,829 RAC: 0 |
The long term anwser which should be viable in 40 years or less is fusion. The only waste you get is Helium and better yet, you can mix current nuclear waste in with the fuel which will get rid of that problem also. This is where the future lies. The torus fusion research has reached the point where more power has been produced than the power used to sustain the process. The problem is sustaining this position for long, and continuous, periods. Later the trick will be to significantly improve the process efficiency. In the mean time the fission option for long term power generation and security of supplies lies with nuclear generation. But with new designs and a heavy emphasis on interlocking safety systems. Most countries will not have good options for wind or other "so called" green, and environmentally sustainable" power generation options. The UK is well served by wind and wave sources as power generation options, as are sunnier countries for solar. Unfortunately the ground footprint of the green alternatives is very obtrusive compared to conventional or nuclear generating sets. Perhaps the best long term, and possibly sustainable, system should look to micro generation. This is where a single house of comercial site, or small group of homes, is served by a small generating system. If this becomes a reality then the demand for large generators would not bee needed! It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues |
BODLEY Send message Joined: 12 Mar 02 Posts: 877 Credit: 125,351 RAC: 0 |
I think ya gotta admit ... Whether you like it or not, EACH living person on this Planet is a drain on Energy. Recoverable resources for Energy HAS to be a constantly depleting item. More people on the Planet? ... more Energy needed. Less infant mortality and more old ba$t*rds like me living longer ... there MUST be a limit somewheres. I have often thought that it is a ridiculous notion to have men digging holes in the ground to bring a substance to the surface that when used just serves to stuff up the planet ecosystem. A similar argument applies to oil. and all its derivatives. It does NOT need a Rhodes Scholar to tell you that Nuclear is the ONLY way ... before the population explosion settles the matter once and for all ... that's MY $0.01 worth. (I'll have the other $0.01 later!!!) |
John Clark Send message Joined: 29 Sep 99 Posts: 16515 Credit: 4,418,829 RAC: 0 |
The long term anwser which should be viable in 40 years or less is fusion. The only waste you get is Helium and better yet, you can mix current nuclear waste in with the fuel which will get rid of that problem also. The really dangerous fission reactors are those fueled with enriched uranium (enhanced isotope 238). These are designed as breeder reactors, and produce 10% more fissile fuel than they burn. This will be used to fuel new breeder reactors. So, for every 9 built the fuel from these, when reprocessed will fuel the 10th. The reprocessing deals with plutonium 238, with a half life of ~24,000 years. But, this would make the power generation fuelling independent of natural uranium deposits. Waste would be seriously hot and dangerous long term, unless handled very carefully! It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues |
BODLEY Send message Joined: 12 Mar 02 Posts: 877 Credit: 125,351 RAC: 0 |
Perhaps the best long term, and possibly sustainable, system should look to micro generation. This is where a single house of comercial site, or small group of homes, is served by a small generating system. If this becomes a reality then the demand for large generators would not bee needed! What a seriously interesting solution!!! WHY have none of the numbskulls that are elected to provide a Government (not just here, but everywhere), not thought of this ... and acted on it? |
BODLEY Send message Joined: 12 Mar 02 Posts: 877 Credit: 125,351 RAC: 0 |
Perhaps the best long term, and possibly sustainable, system should look to micro generation. This is where a single house of comercial site, or small group of homes, is served by a small generating system. If this becomes a reality then the demand for large generators would not bee needed! btw ... does that mean we would - in the case of meltdown ... only have a small nuclear explosion? If so ... let's ensure that the first one is built to service 10 Downing street. I would even Pay for it ... personally .... !!!!!!! |
joebloe3000 Send message Joined: 28 Oct 00 Posts: 24 Credit: 3,165,532 RAC: 0 |
I found this pretty interesting and if it is acurate and not made up, this is our future. http://youtube.com/watch?v=HF__Qlhtnws&search=water%20power |
RDC Send message Joined: 17 May 99 Posts: 544 Credit: 1,215,728 RAC: 0 |
I live about 15 miles downwind of Shippingsport, PA's reactors (Beaver Valley), which was the first one built for producing electricity in 1957, and there hasn't been any incidents with the reactor that I'm aware of. It always has been rather well run by a private company. What's humorous though is that even though our area has a nuclear plant, the power is sent out west and not connected to the local area grid and we get our power from coal powered plants. To truly explore, one must keep an open mind... |
BillHyland Send message Joined: 30 Apr 04 Posts: 907 Credit: 5,764,172 RAC: 0 |
...does that mean we would - in the case of meltdown ... only have a small nuclear explosion? BODLEY, a meltdown, no matter how severe, cannot cause a nuclear explosion, but you can get a chemical explosion or a steam explosion. It is extrordinarily difficult to force the conditions that cause a nuclear explosion. And commercial reactor design is very safe. The Three Mile Island incident in the US is proof of that. TMI was the result of several years of improper (or none at all) maintenance and a chain of decisions that were exactly wrong. The reactor core lost coolant and the result was a very small release of radioactive gas. This is flat out amazing considering that the reactor core was trashed. Everything else was confined within the dome shaped building you see at just about every nuclear power facility called a containment vessel. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.