One-Eyed Richmond Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: mightytiges on November 21, 2006, 06:20:24 PM
-
Looks like Australia is going to have 25 Nuclear power stations built to supply 1/3 of our electricity. Most will be built along the east coast. The waste will be stored a km underground.
It'll be interesting where they are proposed to be built given the NIMBY factor.
Thoughts?
-
Can't see it happening in the short term MT. They are saying it will cost $3 billion per station - I don't think any government would have the guts to actually do it.
Even Bracks was saying today that Victoria woould have to a referendum for one to be built in Victoria
-
Yep nuclear costs far more than coal. Their solution: tax the hell out of energy generated by burning fossil fuels so nuclear then becomes competitive. And guess who'll pay the higher bills - the consumer ::).
And just generating 1/3 of our electricity needs doesn't justify the cost either IMO. I was expecting if we went down this path that it would need to become our main energy source. Those in favour of nuclear power seem more interested in the possible $$$ generated from uranium enrichment rather any enviromental concerns but that's no surprise given most of them believe climate change is a myth.
-
maybe not in this generation but nuclear generated power will be a sure thing and it will be safe and enviro friendly (hard to believe but true) and part of the push will be because of the following from your post MT but that's no surprise given most of them believe climate change is a myth. the amount of greenhouse gas from np is extremely small compared to fossil fuels, we have a coal fired kiln at work burning 380+ tpd, generating copious amounts of nasties into the air i dont think i will see it go np in my working life time but 40 -50 yrs from now for sure
its true that cost is a factor but advances to technology will lessen the cost to that of coal and gas
other renewable sources like tide, solar, wind, geothermal, will contribute but alone they will not be sufficient to meet the demands of our electrical needs, its been estimated that the average household in 2020 will use 30% more power than we do know as we use 30% more than we did in 1970 look at how many more electic gadgets we have compared to 30 years ago
this is a very emotive topic which will polarise the whole country, be prepared for some very drastic actions from "normal" australia ,but the future generations will carry this through to its fruition
-
It can be argued that the current Nuclear power stations in the Western world are operationally fairly safe already taking into account the checks and regulations to maintain modern reactors. The waste is a separate issue but recycling the long-term radioactive components can reduce the total amount of waste produced as well as the time it needs to be sealed off from the environment.
However the costs are still exorbitant especially for Australia where unlike say France we have alternative energy resources at our disposal. If advances in technology over time could make Nuclear power more cost effective and cheaper to run then good. That seems a more logical way of thinking to me. But the report is saying that existing fossil fuel industries will be made artifically more expensive so nuclear can compete. That to me just says higher bills at the consumer end on top of the taxpayer cost and subsidies required to get these things off the ground. And like existing renewable energies, Nuclear power is being planned to provide, in 50 years time, only a minority of our energy needs unlike in France where it currently provides 80% of their electricity. Whose to say that advances in other existing and renewable technologies over the next 40-50 years won't undercut it all. I think there needs to be a broader debate and strategy on energy than just this report.
-
What of SOLAR energy ???????????
Oh that's right,they cant charge SUN TAX !!
As a society we need to make the move ourselves.
stuff those dog,.paedophiles politicians.
How many little boys do u rekkon Downer and Howard have assaulted in recent trips to Asia ?
-
How many little boys do u rekkon Downer and Howard have assaulted in recent trips to Asia ?
He's only at the holding hands stage, Ox
(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/6041/cmhowardwideweb470x3040yk0.jpg)
What of SOLAR energy ???????????
In a nation with probably more sun than anywhere else, couldn't agree more
-
thats a beauty Moister. :thumbsup :scream
-
They store low-level nuclear stuff in hospital and building car parks at the moment.
Do you reckon they're going to be able to convince any electorate to have the heavy stuff in their area?
Not a chance.
Have your reports into having nuclear waste dumps and power stations, but please have the guts to say where they're actually going to go.
Won't happen in these pollies' lifetimes
To have nuclear dump sites, they've got to build them where they're not far enough away to incur massive freight costs.
No Nowingis in my backyard, thanks
-
Someone should tell the French that they can't work - they've got about 45 I think.
It's the only way to go long term but it's such an emotional issue based on half truths by the anti-nuclear lobby that they probably won't be built here. Of course the Labor party know when they are on to a good thing and ask Howard to tell everyone where they are going to be - when all he's done is open up the debate with a report from experts.
Modern sites are extremely safe - the anti lobby still only has minor examples of safety issues, most spectacularly Chernobyl which was a model that would never be built today.
Solar energy is simply not able to provide base load power - it's been around for 50 years and hasn't progressed very far in that time - cost and effectiveness are still issues.
Nuclear waste is currently stored in inner city basements, as Moi implied, but God forbid we ever try to store it in the middle of nowhere one mile undergound.
-
My guess for Victoria based on newspaper reports is Hastings on Western Port Bay, Latrobe Valley and Point Cook. All have existing freight infrastructure (railways) for delivery of the uranium and near water for cooling the reactors.
-
Water
Ted Baillieu - we're gonna build another dam.
Moi - if it ain't raining, Ted, doesn't matter how many effing dams you build, there's still no water.
Vote 1 - Moi :thumbsup
-
We've got plenty of water in the Thompson dam - and Ted's going to build a desalination plant as well.
Vote One Ted
Out Moi
-
How big are the greenhouse emissions with the operation of a desalinatin plant.
Vote 1 - Moi
Give Mr Speedo :chuck the flick lol
-
We've got plenty of water in the Thompson dam
Then why build another dam?
You build another one and there is no water to fill it, leaves me scratching my head.
We have enough dams - we just don't have rain.
I'd be looking at ways to stop stormwater from escaping back into the ocean. peees me off when it buckets down but it's washed away into the ocean.
-
God forbid we ever try to store it in the middle of nowhere one mile undergound.
You're more au fait with this stuff than I ever will be, MJS, but I don't understand you here?
You wanna add to this?
I thought this got rejected of putting it underground - some company I think wanted to store the world's nuclear waste.
If you think it's unsafe one mile underground in the middle of nowhere, why would anyone want it close to cities, water catchments etc?
-
Build one at AAMI stadium I say ;)
-
What about wind farms? Plenty popping up all over Europe.
-
What about wind farms? Plenty popping up all over Europe.
They're big and ugly and the same as any of this stuff - most people say not in my backyard.
But worth a look at before building big greenhouse emitting desalination plants, wasting money on building dams
More R & D into solar, wind and tidal, I reckon.
Nuclear energy works, but it's terribly expensive and while they're more progressed from Chernobyl that that kind of thing more than likely wouldn't happen, there is still an element of risk of the castastrophic.
-
Wind farms hey, lets all down a few Souvalkis and things should be right ;D
-
We should leave this world better than when we came into it.
Clean, renewable energy is the future.
http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res_Renewable.pdf
-
We should leave this world better than when we came into it.
Clean, renewable energy is the future.
http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res_Renewable.pdf
Yes, I know, the world will be a better place when I leave it lol
Suffer in the meantime hahaha!
Nite
:lol
-
God forbid we ever try to store it in the middle of nowhere one mile undergound.
You're more au fait with this stuff than I ever will be, MJS, but I don't understand you here?
You wanna add to this?
I thought this got rejected of putting it underground - some company I think wanted to store the world's nuclear waste.
If you think it's unsafe one mile underground in the middle of nowhere, why would anyone want it close to cities, water catchments etc?
Sorry Moi - my sarcasm got in the way.
What I was saying is that we currently store nuclear waste in places like Peter Mcallum and Lucas Heights but when anyone suggests we encase the stuff in glass or concrete and put it a mile underground it's not safe! I believe it is.
As far as green house emissions from a desalination plant - what are they? I've just come back from Shanghai - took some pictures but unfortunately can't see anything because of the toxic fog. They churn out more crap in a week than we would in a year - it was unbelievable. My throat was sore first couple of days but then I got used to it - turned green though.
-
LMAO@my clean air, clean water, clean everything as I sit here polluting the air with my own smoke :rollin
Yep, bury the waste a mile deep in the middle of nowhere and throw in some pollies as well :thumbsup
-
blast the waste into space and hope it just keeps going.
-
blast the waste into space and hope it just keeps going.
That's fine as long as nothing goes wrong with the rocket. If there's a malfunction at launch or on the way up in the atmosphere and the rocket explodes then oh oh :help.
-
As far as green house emissions from a desalination plant - what are they? I've just come back from Shanghai - took some pictures but unfortunately can't see anything because of the toxic fog. They churn out more crap in a week than we would in a year - it was unbelievable. My throat was sore first couple of days but then I got used to it - turned green though.
Desalination plants require alot of energy to run them so if you use fossil fuel to supply the energy then that contributes greenhouse emissions. They also produce waste (hypersaline brine) which much be disposed of.
Another dam will only work (in the future of course as no rain now will do bugger all) if the run-offs are independent of exisitng run-offs to other dams. It's simplistic to say "just build a dam" unless you state where you are going to build one (same thing goes for the nuclear argument). The problem we have now is our rain patterns have changed (moved south to coastal regions) and so we are getting reduced run-offs.
You'll find newly built homes in new estates in Berwick, Pakenham etc ... come with solar panels on roofs and water tanks included. I wonder how much water and greenhouse emissions could be saved and how much more efficient we could become with our existing resources if we all went down this path; not just with new homes?!
-
Here is an article about proposals for desalination plants in California that you might find interesting.
http://www.mofo.com/news/updates/files/update02222.html
regards
-
Here is an article about proposals for desalination plants in California that you might find interesting.
http://www.mofo.com/news/updates/files/update02222.html
regards
A fairly balanced view mjs. The Californian economy is larger than even most countries so you would have to see if the costs/savings there would also apply here in Oz to the same degree.
-
They also produce waste (hypersaline brine) which much be disposed of.
Hasn't this normally gone back into the ocean and stuffed up the marine life in the area as a consequence?
-
killing everyone also works.
-
Some guy in the US has made his house energy self-sufficient with a solar-hydrogen system. No bills, no waste. The cost though is way out of reach of the average person.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Solar-power-eliminates-bills-in-US-home/2007/01/17/1168709802902.html