Should Australia go nuclear?

[JohnB]

I kind of like the Solar Tower planned for Mildura. One thing we do have is absolute cr*ploads of sunlight. With these things in the 200 Mw range a few wouldn't go astray.

 

http://www.solarmissiontechnologies.com/FAQs.htm for details.

[Tetrahedrite]

I've been folowing the solar tower project quite closely, and I really hope it goes ahead. Not only will it generate power, but I'm sure it will give Mildura a huge tourism boost!

[SmallIsPower]

As to using the alternatives' date=' you have just got to be kidding.

...

 

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.)

)[/quote']

So mining sand is more environmentally damaging than storing plutonium. One thing you have plenty of in Australia is sand. Solar collectors are popping up locally (Northern California), and I haven't heard one environmentalist complain, and they were lined up to applaud the County's Board of Supervisors wind/wave and biomass plant. It's the only time I can remember when residents came in large number not complaining about corruption or some other annoying activity.

 

Surely there is some place in Australia is far isolated enough that you can place wind turbines there without upsetting too many people's views. The people of Europe and America seem to be able to find locations.

[SmallIsPower]

Global warming is going to do more damage to the birds than windmills, as will the left over plutonium, unless your idea of biodiversity is having twoheaded yellow whatsits. Even ifthose containers are build to last 100,000 years, what's to keep a terrorist out of them?

[CPL.Luke]

the pebble-bed reactor is supposed to be very safe, China went so far as to turn off its cooling system to prove it can't melt down. Last I heard China was planning to build over a hundred of them.

 

smallispower, did you notice that uranium is a naturally occuring element? ie its all over australia and the world already. in fact there are places where its at such a high concentration as to allow people to mine it.

 

furthermore the stuff that comes out of a reactor has already been turned into some pretty short lived isotopes that pretty rapidly decay and become safe.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Global warming is going to do more damage to the birds than windmills, as will the left over plutonium, unless your idea of biodiversity is having twoheaded yellow whatsits. Even ifthose containers are build to last 100,000 years, what's to keep a terrorist out of them?

Security?

 

 

In any case, a new sort of nuclear reactor (Advanced Liquid-Metal Reactor) is being developed that promises the ability to use about 99% of nuclear fuel efficiently - not just the 5% of other designs - and to be able to accept "waste" from other plants as fuel, producing by-products with shorter half-lives.

[walrusman]

...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.

 

How disappointing... I really don't care for "Nucular", fossil fuels, or any of these. I mean, 10,000 years of storage? Talk about passing problems onto future generations. And fossil fuels are bad for too many reasons. I really hoped wind farms and solar would take off by now. It would be nice to see Australia lead the charge on cleaner, better alternative power.

 

By the way, are there any plans on putting solar panels in space and redirecting the power to earth? Or did I just dream that?

[Sisyphus]

By the way' date=' are there any plans on putting solar panels in space and redirecting the power to earth? Or did I just dream that?[/quote']

 

You dreamed the plans, but not the idea. That's been tossed around as a possibility since the 1950s, it just isn't close to feasible yet.

[CPL.Luke]

not to mention that in order to beam the power back to earth yhou need a giant microwave reciever that in order to be economical would probably have to recieve several dozen gigawatts of power. SO what do you guys think of having a giant microwave death ray coming out of the sky to deliver your energy?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And people complain that wind turbines kill birds.

[walrusman]

SO what do you guys think of having a giant microwave death ray coming out of the sky to deliver your energy?

 

...like totally awesome...

[bob000555]

While it is true that there have been fewer nuclear accidents this is partly because there are far fewer nuclear power plants the conventional ones. Second Australia has no need for nuclear power they would be far better of using the resources they already have then spending billions of dollars on nuclear power plants. While it is true that uranium is not rare the safety precautions needed make it very expensive in the end. Since Australia really has no need for nuclear power plants it is quit suspicious that they want one (or many).

[JohnB]

Bob, it's not so much that we want one.

 

The Debate in Oz is more "How can we meet the energy needs of the future?" Because of this we are looking at all alternatives. Solar, Convection, wind, Nuclear and wave.

 

The Wave generator from Energetech http://www.energetech.com.au/ seems especially interesting. Since the turbine blades are reversable, it can generate power from both the rise and fall of the wave. The parabolic walls also strengthen the force of each wave.

 

The bottom line is that are looking at all options and not ruling anything out for the moment.

[Severian]

I mean' date=' 10,000 years of storage?

[/quote']

 

Asbestos will never become non-toxic and is just as dangerous (in the UK it is classed as 'hazardous waste'), and must now be stored in much greater amounts. Why does no-one complain about that?