PM Pushes for Nuclear power in Australia

[Walkinshaw]

I hope they find the electorate who opposes nuclear power the most, and locate a reactor there.

Seriously people, just accept it. I don't care if you don't approve of it, just accept it.

[Fairlane]

I still cant accept nuclear power, when he have some of the most abundant sources of geothermal, wind and obvious solar activity (and of course coal).

Nuclear i think is quite pointless in this nation, it would costly to develop from the base we have, politically contentious, difficult to manage (private and public electric companies) and would take years to get running. Ultimately as well you cant get passed the fact that Nuclear power is a dead end, like coal; but atleast we know and are good at coal stations.

I truly think that Australia should go full scale into renewable energy, use some of the massive future fund and the money earmarked for nuclear power and spend it on renewable energy sources.

Now im the first to admity that renewable energy is not at the stage where it can develop say 80% of our electric needs and its ability at creating baseline power for the grid is still limited, but with time it will be the ultimate answer, no half arsed gap filler a 100% solution to the energy problem. Nuclear and still a stop gap and with a fast but phased shift into renewable energy we can remove the worst coal power stations (ie Latrobe Valley stations) first and slowly shift into a situation where only the cleanest and most efficient coal plants are left (Mt Piper, Stanwell, Bayswater), weening ourself of coal power and reaching a stage where something on the order of 65-70% of our power will come from unlimted renewable resources.

[ED Classic]

It will be a good thing...I am for it.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

I hope they find the electorate who opposes nuclear power the most, and locate a reactor there.

Easy - Sydney CBD.

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Easy - Sydney CBD.

Benalong??? (SP?)

[M&Ms]

I think we'll go nuclear sooner or later, but not entirely. I believe most of our future power generation will still be from coal (we've just got so much of the stuff) and nuclear power stations will be built to overcome the shortage of power Australia will innevitably face in the future.

Mt Piper power station, the newest one, is only a 2 x 660 MW unit (was supposed to be a 4 x 750 but it didn't eventuate) whereas nuclear power stations usually exceed 1000 MW per unit. For us to be sustainable, a Mt Piper should of been built once every 2 years, but we no government wants to fund building any coal fired power stations - political suicide!

Coal power stations will get cleaner and more efficient in the coming years (many upgrades taking place as we speak), but there is only so much we can do to the existing units and I believe we will see our first nuclear power station as soon as some of the population becomes convinced they are safe (which they are). Most of the western world has nuclear power (France has 80% of its power generated this way) without any drama or fear, except for the minority who try to instill this fear into the population. I think the one major hurdle faced at the moment is the lack of expertise in this field compared to other countries, which we will overcome.

Oh, and for the record, a properly functioning nuclear power station will in fact emit less radiation than a typical coal fired power station, but I guess some people will always oppose nuclear power no matter how it comes up in discussion.

[Gunns]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Easy - Sydney CBD.

Can build one on jutland parade!

[ebxr8240]

It "may" save polution, BUT how much coal are we selling to China, Japan etc???

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by Gunns

Can build one on jutland parade!

LMAO!

[Gunns]

They came down from Canberra in a blacked out blue BA
that left 2 black lines right down jutland parade
right next door to bondy's.
when the smoke had cleard a voice said
'ah this place look alright, well tell the residents its a nuclear site, dead f^cking easy!'
Hello mr allan bond how u going mate, hey this reactor is your brand new neighbour hey mate I bet you can wait! and i think it will be good here, making power next door to Allan.

[Lumpen Proletariat]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

It "may" save polution, BUT how much coal are we selling to China, Japan etc???

None.

We (Australia) are not selling any at all.

Most of our coal is owned by foreign interest, in particular Japan. Mitsubishi for example own quite alot of the Queensland coal pits. The only money we (Australia) get from the taxes levelled on workers in that industry.

Then again, I believe our Uranium is 'controlled' by Xstrata? A Swiss company?


Having lived with solar for 20 years, I find it to be no more than a mild inconvenience and that was running only batteries with a 1500W capacity on the invertor (1500W continuous at any one time). We were not connected to the grid. And for whoever said that watch out for panels when it hails, they have no idea. I lived on the Granite Belt, an area with some of the worst hail in Eastern Australia, we had hail storms so heavy that our roof needed to be replaced but the panels weren't touched.

Being a 20 year old system, the panels themselves aren't current technology and the batteries are under capacity for the house BUT it still runs fridge, freezer, telly and all that other kind of stuff. Just not silly things like a microwave, vacum cleaner, hairdryer, plasma and washing machine all at once.


The simple fact is. We have two proven technologies. One that involves the stripping of resources, the destruction of both the local environment and is linked to massive alteration of the climate on a global scale but it employs thousands of people, working for foreign comanpies. This technology is about 150 years old.

The other, is a safe technology that also involves the destruction of local environs and when not safely monitored (or understood, like at South Alligator in the 1960's) can lead to devastation of the enviroment. Often feared, nuclear power is misunderstood.

How were we first introduced to it? Hiroshima, Nagasaki and 450,000 casulaties.

How do we interact with it today? If you've ever had a friend or relative survive cancer through radiotherapy, thank nuclear reactors, support nuclear reactors. Those radioactive isotopes were created thanks to ANSTO and Lucas Heights.

History remembers Three Mile Island, Sennefeld, Chernobyl. All three have something in common. Inefficiences in support and supervision, leading to operator error. Chernobyl was ALSO made alot worse by the kind of nuclear reactor it possessed, inherently unsafe BUT highly efficient at producing thermal power.


People are saying we have alot of viable alternatives to nuclear power but the fact of the matter is we have alot of viable future alternatives to nuclear power.

Geothermal: Yes, it is used in New Zealand and other places but they have hot wet rocks that flow water and steam solely through certain paths. In Australia, we have hot dry rocks. These can be used to create geeothermal steam but as many of these rocks are fractured, there are many different paths that the water and steam can and do take, many of which do not flow back out past the turbines.

Wind: Great idea, where it's windy. Unfortunately where it's really windy is often prime real estate (ie on the coast) and people get all upset because they think their lump of dirt is the most important thing there is. I actually find them quite graceful and elegant. Whack them up where ever possible. Unfortunate thing is that even the largest of them, something like an Enercon E-82 (138m to the hub and 179m (thats TALL) to the tip of the turbine) only produce around 2MW. As pointed out before, an average power station runs around 1000MW combined.

Solar: Alot of progress being made in this department. Great use of Australia's best natural resource however it is only viable for individual housing or smaller settlements with current technology. It faces the same problems windpower does, small total output vs land used. Having said that, the CSIRO is making great headway with solar technology. As they have often in the past, the fault being that once they develop a technology, the government doesn't wish to take it up and the technology is sold of, often to companies like BP. The largest holder of Solar Technlogy patent's in the world.



So for the long winded post, but I hold this subject pretty close to my heart and there is as much misinformation floated around about nuclear energy as there is misinformation in Wheels about the Commodore...


Lumpy

[flappist]

I am always amused by the "1000000000 year life span of the dangerous waste". and we will all glow in the dark and grow 2 heads.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually bombed 60 years ago and they are running along happily.

Do you really think that we will not work out how to turn Cobolt60 or Promethium into gummy bears in the next few years?

I wonder how many people, 100 years ago rabbited on about how we could never communicate with or travel to the other side of the world easily so we should not settle there incase something bad happened?

Nuclear power WILL happen in this country, if you don't like go somewhere else because there is NOTHING you can do about it.

[Lumpen Proletariat]

The other thing to consider is that the cost of infrastructure, regardless of whether it is nuclear or coal power stations is enormous. While it was ok to privatise the electricity companies, for some reason, they have an aversion to spend their money on anything more than maintainence.

The onus then falls back on governments (and our taxes) to build this infrastructure on behalf of private, profit making enterprises. The best we seem to hope for is a Publid-Private-Partnership and after NSW's experiences with Road ByPass Tunnels, Macquarie Bank and Bob Carr let's just say that P-P-P's are shady at best and a meagerie of corruption at worst.


So what happens? Do we foot the bill for the infrastructure and open yet another electricity providor? Do we nationalise private providors after privatise them? Do we leave the cost of the infrastructure up to those who make money from it?

Regulation? Deregulation? Government Intervention?

The debate is far more reaching than: Should we, or should we not split atoms on Australian Soil?



Lumpy

[Lumpen Proletariat]

Originally Posted by flappist

Nuclear power WILL happen in this country, if you don't like go somewhere else because there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Bing.

I think this really is a situation where we have to sit down and say "On Nuclear Power, we are not talking about an insular Australian perspective but a 'six billion people on a tiny rock with no chance of escape that is getting more polluted by the second' Perspective"



Lumpy

[Sourbastard]

Photovoltaic is dead. Heliostats are the way forward for energy in Australia. Small facilities running in a test capacity make about 30mw each, and have an efficiency in the 90% range, compared to the 15 - 25% range for photovoltaic "solar cells". Theres nothing to develop, the concepts are as old as mankind. Sun make thing hot! Ugg. Theres even one of these being built in QLD I believe and another in outback SA somewhere.

http://rhlx01.rz.fht-esslingen.de/pr...owertower.html

I reckon we could fit a few of these in the desert dont you?



As to nuclear power, Im neither for or against it on a safety point of view, but on an investment point of view its a bit iffy for long term.

[melbzetec]

I think the issue at the moment is more about trust:

1. John Howard commissions an inquiry on nuclear energy, but tells his mates it would be a good idea to start a nuclear company before the enquiry reports. Now he says the Australian people will get to make a choice as to whether we go nuclear, but changes laws now in order to be ready for nuclear energy. Does anyone trust this bloke anymore?

2. Scientists and engineers who would be looking after nuclear power stations:they wonder why there is no trust. Try Y2K and calicivirus ("it will never escape the test island") Scientific community has little credibility these days. Therefore blanket assurances of "it's totally safe" meet with a fair degree of justified cynicism.

3. And Howard says it will be private enterprise who'll run the stations. Still don't know a private company that isn't faced with budget and resource constraints, and isn't subject to human error

I trust the technology, just don't trust the people and companies involved to get it 100% right. Getting it 99% right in nuclear reactor is not good enough for me

For all the positives and negative arguments about nuclear energy, I don't see many here putting their hand up to have a reactor built in their street

[Lumpen Proletariat]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Photovoltaic is dead. Heliostats are the way forward for energy in Australia. Small facilities running in a test capacity make about 30mw each, and have an efficiency in the 90% range, compared to the 15 - 25% range for photovoltaic "solar cells". Theres nothing to develop, the concepts are as old as mankind. Sun make thing hot! Ugg. Theres even one of these being built in QLD I believe and another in outback SA somewhere.

http://rhlx01.rz.fht-esslingen.de/pr...owertower.html

I reckon we could fit a few of these in the desert dont you?



As to nuclear power, Im neither for or against it on a safety point of view, but on an investment point of view its a bit iffy for long term.

Yeah. I was researching on the CSIRO's development of solar and these are the 'Next Big Thing'. NEXT being the intergral word there.

Makes perfect sense for remote rural areas, but at 10MW still not practicable for places like Sydney. Then again, I'm of the firm belief that if we dam the Parramatta River at say, The Heads, then that would sort out Sydney's energy needs much better than a nuclear reactor or two.



Lumpy :

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by Lumpen Proletariat

Yeah. I was researching on the CSIRO's development of solar and these are the 'Next Big Thing'. NEXT being the intergral word there.

Makes perfect sense for remote rural areas, but at 10MW still not practicable for places like Sydney. Then again, I'm of the firm belief that if we dam the Parramatta River at say, The Heads, then that would sort out Sydney's energy needs much better than a nuclear reactor or two.



Lumpy :

I dunno that distance is that much of a factor really. Theres no technical reason these have to be located IN sydney, theres some good locations inland in NSW that would serve quite well. And as to being the "Next" big thing, these have been in testing for almost 20 years, and each iteration becomes more superior, I'd say safely it would be close to being ready as a technology for mass production, long before and built far more quickly then even 1 nuclear power station.

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Photovoltaic is dead. Heliostats are the way forward for energy in Australia. Small facilities running in a test capacity make about 30mw each, and have an efficiency in the 90% range, compared to the 15 - 25% range for photovoltaic "solar cells". Theres nothing to develop, the concepts are as old as mankind. Sun make thing hot! Ugg. Theres even one of these being built in QLD I believe and another in outback SA somewhere.

http://rhlx01.rz.fht-esslingen.de/pr...owertower.html

I reckon we could fit a few of these in the desert dont you?



As to nuclear power, Im neither for or against it on a safety point of view, but on an investment point of view its a bit iffy for long term.

Little water in the desert isn't there?

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by BlackLS

Little water in the desert isn't there?

and...? I might point out these heat molten salt and create steam in a closed system through a condenser. Theres only a need for a finite amount of water

[SB076]

I think they should look at decentralised systems more, I had a look at getting my house converted to solar energy but its not cheap (bout $20,000) it would be good if the government subsidised it to make it more attractive
Benefits 25 year warranty (on the panels), cheap clean power, less reliance on the government - good thing IMO

Disadvantages costs


As for Nuclear I am not to fussed either way

[Lumpen Proletariat]

Originally Posted by SB076

I think they should look at decentralised systems more, I had a look at getting my house converted to solar energy but its not cheap (bout $20,000) it would be good if the government subsidised it to make it more attractive
Benefits 25 year warranty (on the panels), cheap clean power, less reliance on the government - good thing IMO

Disadvantages costs

Depends where you are though.

We (mum and dad) went solar in 1987 because to connect to the grid was going to cost $18,000 (to bring it about 3.5kms through bush) and the entire solar system cost $22,000 including completely rewiring the house for a dual 24v/240v system.

Today, the same size system we've got costs around $18,000. An equivelant 'almost top of the range' system (what we got in '87) is around $25,000 and connect that same 3.5km to the grid? Try $45,000!

Even with the Single Cylinder Lister Disel Generator (2.5kVa) as backup, we're still well in front with the only failures (due to near lightning strikes) covered by household insurance.



Lumpy

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Lumpen Proletariat

Depends where you are though.

We (mum and dad) went solar in 1987 because to connect to the grid was going to cost $18,000 (to bring it about 3.5kms through bush) and the entire solar system cost $22,000 including completely rewiring the house for a dual 24v/240v system.

Today, the same size system we've got costs around $18,000. An equivelant 'almost top of the range' system (what we got in '87) is around $25,000 and connect that same 3.5km to the grid? Try $45,000!

Even with the Single Cylinder Lister Disel Generator (2.5kVa) as backup, we're still well in front with the only failures (due to near lightning strikes) covered by household insurance.



Lumpy

SE Vic - the system with full battery backup to last 5 days without any sunlight at all and complete mains failure was $32,000 (battery back up was $12,000 on its own) Based on rough calculations it would take 20 years approx. for the system to pay for itself. Therefore not really enough incentative (considering mains power is easily accessible)

All figures are approx.

[GreenMachine]

Originally Posted by Gunns

They came down from Canberra in a blacked out blue BA
that left 2 black lines right down jutland parade
right next door to bondy's.
when the smoke had cleard a voice said
'ah this place look alright, well tell the residents its a nuclear site, dead f^cking easy!'
Hello mr allan bond how u going mate, hey this reactor is your brand new neighbour hey mate I bet you can wait! and i think it will be good here, making power next door to Allan.

Mate, you are my hero. Long live Kevin Bloody Wilson!

[JamesR]

im all for nuclear power.
i live within 30kms of 3 coal power stations, and i wouldnt care if they were all nuclear powered.

[Gunns]

They came down from Canberra in a blacked out blue BA
that left 2 black lines right down jutland parade
right next door to bondy's.
when the smoke had cleard a voice said
'ah this place look alright, well tell the residents its a nuclear site, dead f^cking easy!'
Hello mr allan bond how u going mate, hey this reactor is your brand new neighbour hey mate I bet you can wait! and i think it will be good here, making power next door to Allan.


24 Nuclear Physicists 9 managers and 15 geeks a stick of uranium in the reactor and a truck load full of concrete and im powerful as George Bush now im splitting atoms next door to Allan.

The first thing that we gotta do is get another reactor, cus the one we got front wont even f^cking power the SCG, we'll call that bloke again from the government he's alrght hey. so they call the bloke in charge, of all the government funds, and the next day in the drive way was a new reactor core 'eh come n have a look at this 1 Johnny this ones got a self destruct button look at this eh'

Good day mr Allan Bond how you going mate? you got a real flash car but my reactor is better “A” and i think that mine can blow sh^t up cus it’s a red one.

24 Nuclear Physicists 9 managers and 15 geeks, all squezzed in the control room, hitting buttons now im working next door to Allan.

so bondy called ben lexon and said ' i want another yatch, twice as big and twice as fast as what i already got, that'll f^ck em'

So his neighbours call government not to be out done and got the HMAS Melberne on some sort of government loan, its got me knacked, they just said they wanna do a nuclear conversion.

Good day mr Allan bond how you going mate, you got a real flash boat but my one's flash 1 "A" and i think im gonna put him in the river next door to Allan's

24 Nuclear Physicists 9 managers and 15 geeks with green ooze coming from the engine, pi$$ out in the river next door to Allan.

So bondy threw a party, the likes you've never seen and invited everybody, from the premier to the queen, and the laylan brothers.

so his neighbours through a barby on the lawn, and invited all the government from Canberra to come down 'hey everyone down you all get bring a big truck load of uranium there's a party on at the power station'

I dont know why he's leaving, or where he's gonna go, he says he's got his reasons and i reckon that i know, he just never got used, to living next door to splitting atoms.

he jumping up and down, and making such a fuss, at least we don't got f^cking millionaires live next door to us, now we got to get used to not living next door to Allan.

Now we got to to get used to not working next door to Allan

[MITCHAY]

Just need Kev to sing it now :

[Van D]

I think there's more to it than just the powerplant though.

Mining uranium isn't the safest thing (look at the history of some uranium mines in Australia).

Also (because someone mentioned the drought), I was reading somewhere the other day that to get the uranium and use it requires a lot of water (20-83% more than other power stations). It used the BHP Billitons olympic dam mine as an example (which mines uranium) and it's the biggest industrial user of water in the southern hemisphere.

Meh, to me it's taking the easy way out.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by popinfresh

Also (because someone mentioned the drought), I was reading somewhere the other day that to get the uranium and use it requires a lot of water (20-83% more than other power stations). It used the BHP Billitons olympic dam mine as an example (which mines uranium) and it's the biggest industrial user of water in the southern hemisphere.

I'd imagine most of the uranium mines would experience the monsoon season, I would think their far enough north for it.

[Van D]

Bilitons is in South Aus if i'm not mistaken. Monsoon or not though, using more water is never a good thing.