Should Australia go nuclear?

[FreeThinker]

Recent debate in Australia is weather the country should go nuclear ( power plants). Nothing is certain, but the cards are on the table. John Howard appears to be in favour of the idea. I am not so sure. Firstly, we have natural gas resources and by the time they are depleted some new technology could emerge. If not, we can always go back to nuclear power. And what to do with all the waste? We can bury it in sand but even then background radiation could cause problems. A much better alternative, in my opinion, is investing in hydro or solar power on mass scale. We have a enormous amount of space for either of these two options. Another problem with nuclear power is the time the idea is suggested. There is a possibility Iran will be invaded because of their plans to develop nuclear power plants, at least thats what they say. I am sure many people will be asking, why the double standard ?

[scicop]

I think Mr. Howard needs to consult with the Abo.

 

And while you're still waiting for the second miracle of Sister Mary Mckillob, ask the pufta Khamal "gentle, gentle is the elephant" what his opinion is. I'm sure the "boy from dundee" will find nuclear "so unkind".

[Severian]

I see a lot of the arguments against nuclear power seem to revolve around the issue of waste. Do you have any idea how much waste is produced by a nuclear power station, as compared with a conventional carbon-based power station? The answer is 'not very much'.

 

So let me turn the question around. If you are going to build conventional power stations, what are you going to do with all the waste?

 

Are you going to release it into the atmosphere? This seems like a bad idea to me given the current global warming due to CO2 emissions.

 

Are you going to bury it, and store up the problem for the next generation?

 

For that matter, do you have any idea about how much waste hydro or solar power will produce? How much maintainance do they require? Do you have to clean the solar panels with detergents? How much disruption to the environment would there be from having thousands of square kilometres covered in solar panels?

[ecoli]

Australia is, for the most part, desert. I'd rather see some solar/wind farms out there.

[Heretic]

Nuclear energy is an incredibly clean and reliable source of energy. I know this may be hard to believe but our methods of containing radioactive materials exceeds burying it in the sand. There are several methods of properly containing waste and most waste is non-radioactive within a century. There however is one byproduct that remains radioactive for 10,000 years or so, and therefore long term storage facilities must be in place.

 

Nuclear reactors are extremely safe especially Candu reactors. There are many fail-safes in place to prevent meltdowns as well as leaks. Other then the radioactive waste (which is contained to prevent eniviromental contamination) there is little pollution. It is much safer, cleaner and reliable then fossil fuels, and far more reliable then natural sources (other then Hydro).

 

I sugest you read more about it, or rather about countries who have been running nuclear reactors for decades without problems. Understand that there is still a lot of research dollars dedicated to finder clean and better nuclear solutions.

 

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/

 

That's a good site about how my country deals with it. It's not the best but I used it not too long ago when doing a little research of my own.

[Pangloss]

It's ironic that just yesterday the western diplomatic coalition offered to give Iran the remaining pieces it needed to build nuclear power plants AND a five-year fuel supply. Apparently we're comfortable enough with letting Iran (of all countries!) handle nuclear waste.

[SmallIsPower]

Wind is competitive with conventional power, and those deserts make Australia good for solar. The most expensive power in the US is in New Hampshire, at least partly because of decommisioning a nuclear plant. Uranium is also a quite limited resource, since all of it was formed in supernovae, unless you go breeder or fission. There was one American breeder plant, a book was written about it titled, "We Almost Lost Detroit", as it almost went supercritical, with many times the fallout of a nuke. Oh, yes there was Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

 

On the positive side, a nuclear spill in Australia would kill far fewer people than in the denser nations that currently have them.

[Severian]

Wind is competitive with conventional power

 

Competitive in what sense?

 

Uranium is also a quite limited resource' date=' since all of it was formed in supernovae, unless you go breeder or fission.

[/quote']

 

Uranium is the 48th most abundant element in the Earth's crust (40 times more abundant than silver). And 1 ton of Uranium would produce the same energy output as 80,000 barrels of oil.

 

You make it sound rare by saying it is formed in supernovae but in fact all elements heavier than iron have been formed in supernovae. All elements lighter than iron have been formed by nuclear fission (which you would presumably be against).

 

On the positive side, a nuclear spill in Australia would kill far fewer people than in the denser nations that currently have them.

 

There have been far far more deaths caused by the exploitation of fossil fuels than there have ever been from nuclear.

[bascule]

Negative void coefficient reactors are perfectly safe. People who oppose nuclear reactors are, well, dumb...

[Tetrahedrite]

Firstly, I am all for nuclear power in Australia. We have 80% of the world's known uranium resources. Modern nuclear technology is relatively safe, and is in many ways a lot more environmentally friendly than burning fossil fuels (and even hydro, to a certain extent). We also have lots of good places to put nuclear power facilities.

 

Secondly, I don't think the disposal of the waste should be a problem at all. Australia probably has the best potential for nuclear waste disposal sites in the world. The Yilgarn craton in Western Australia is one of the most geologically inactive places know, not having changed for at least 3-4 billion years!! Add to this that it is a huge, unpopulated desert, and you have a prime location. I actually believe that we should have a nuclear waste disposal industry, it could be quite an earner for Australia.

 

However, I don't think that either of the political parties want a serious debate on nuclear energy. The nuclear issue was simply invented by the liberal party to deflect attention from the government's attrocious culpability in the iraqi wheat for weapons scandal, and also the introduction of the draconian and enormously unpopular IR laws.

 

Shame, really.

[bascule]

What are IR laws?

[Tetrahedrite]

IR = industrial relations

[FreeThinker]

Negative void coefficient reactors are perfectly safe. People who oppose nuclear reactors are, well, dumb...

 

 

They could be misinformed, not interested and possibly ignorant. To call them dumb is, well , dumb...

[Tetrahedrite]

They could be misinformed, not interested and possibly ignorant. To call them dumb is, well , dumb...

I think this is a major problem for a lot of people. Years of demonisation of anything containing the words nuclear or atomic has had a profound effect. And I don't think it will change any time soon. The uneducated masses are the main obstical I see to any nuclear facilities in Australia.

[FreeThinker]

I think this is a major problem for a lot of people. Years of demonisation of anything containing the words nuclear or atomic has had a profound effect. And I don't think it will change any time soon. The uneducated masses are the main obstical I see to any nuclear facilities in Australia.

 

Very true. It is a shame that the potential of nuclear energy for good use (food irradiation , material testing, medical purposes etc.) is not publicised by the media. However, they are quick to mention nuclear weapons, nuclear accidents and anything else giving nuclear use a "bad name".

 

I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do see the potential in nuclear energy to be a valuable, and an efficient , way of providing power. I am just questioning the timing of the idea. I will admit that my knowledge of the disposal techniques for nuclear waste is weak at best. I will read through the Canadian websites posted in a previous post.

[Nevermore]

Very true. It is a shame that the potential of nuclear energy for good use (food irradiation , material testing, medical purposes etc.)...

Hold on, food irradiation? I'm not the most educated individual on nuclear tech, and I'm all for Aussie nuke plants, but why in god's name would we irradiate our food?

[FreeThinker]

Hold on, food irradiation? I'm not the most educated individual on nuclear tech, and I'm all for Aussie nuke plants, but why in god's name would we irradiate our food?

 

To kill off any harmful pests that could destroy the food during storage. In third world countries the stock saved by food irradiation saves thousands of lives each year.

[Severian]

Food irradiation is a good example because it sounds to the average person on the street like a terrible idea. But when you consider the dangers (and the deaths caused by) spraying your food with pesticides and preservatives, it is by far the prefered option.

 

Nucelar generally is a bit like this I think. Sure nuclear has its problems, although they are no where near as big as people believe. But the other forms of energy production have much much bigger problems. It is just that their problems have either always been with us so we don't notice them, or have not been demonised to the same extent.

 

When I look around at the old buildings in my city and see how black they are from the soot of the industrial age, I find it hard to believe that people tolerated the use of fossil fuels for so long.

[Sisyphus]

Yes Australia should go nuclear. We all should, really, but Australia especially, since they are apparently uniquely suited for it. AND they should invest in renewables like wind farms, which are always the cleanest option but are never reliable enough to be the sole source of power.

 

"Nuclear" is in the same category as "cloning" in that people respond to the word instead of giving it any thought whatsoever.

[ecoli]

"Nuclear" is in the same category as "cloning" in that people respond to the word instead of giving it any thought whatsoever.

 

I think that these people respond more to the word "Nucular" than they do "Nuclear."

[JohnB]

We already have a small reactor outside Sydney. Lucas Heights is used for generating short lived isotopes for medical scanning.

 

Like others, I'm a bit dubious about the timing but it is a debate that we need to have. The idea is to cover all facets of the nuclear industry, not just whether to have power generating reactors or not. The Australian Labour party is committed to a "Three Mine" policy, should this continue? Should we set up refining operations and sell fuel rods to the rest of the world rather than selling yellowcake?

 

Should we create an industry for the disposal of nuclear waste from around the world? If we sell fuel rods to other nations, then some of their uranium can be diverted to weapons programs, what safeguards are suitable to prevent this?

 

As to using the alternatives, you have just got to be kidding.

Hydro power? Firstly we're in the middle of a bloody drought, secondly the Greens and Democrats hate dams and the ALP isn't too fond of them. (Franklin River anyone?)

We can't go for Solar power because that would mean sand mining on a grand scale and the Greens and Dems are against that too. Add that to the native title claims wherever you tried to put it and it's too much trouble.

Wind farms are visual pollution and might hurt the yellow billed whatsit. (that hasn't been seen in the area for 40 years anyway, but who cares it's a good emotional, ecological argument.)

 

Personally, I would like to see an absolute semi-load of cash put into superconductor research. In Queensland we lose over 70% of our generated power just getting it to the consumer. If we had a working room temperature superconductor for the high tension lines, we would effectively triple our power generation. If the boffins want $1 Billion, then give it to them, it's still cheaper than $10 Billion spent on new power stations. (And we could turn a dollar or two selling it to the rest of the world. )

[Skye]

Yes, but this is probably all politics, unfortunately.

 

(Edited to be less silly)

[Boomerang]

Hello,

 

Some interesting comments.

 

There are options around but I believe they are not as reliable as nuclear power, for example a place dependent on windmills what would it be of use on a day with no wind?

 

Anyone with more information about the usage of graphite instead of water to control reactions?

[Genecks]

Japan may not be happy about radiation.

 

In terms of alternative energy, Australia could get large running wheels; train all the rabbits--which over-populate the island--to run on the wheels; and then conserve and store that energy.

 

Eventually, the rabbit problems will be turned into a positive gain.

[Sisyphus]

There are options around but I believe they are not as reliable as nuclear power' date=' for example a place dependent on windmills what would it be of use on a day with no wind? [/quote']

 

You wouldn't have wind turbines as the only source of power. You could have enough of them (or other clean but unreliable sources, like solar) so that they provide most of the necessary elecricity on windy days, but still have backups like nuclear that can take up the slack.