Nuclear power - do we need it?

[Falcon Freak]

No fence sitters please - yes or no.

FF

[Gammaboy]

Yes

[Electric]

No :yeees:

[Deadman]

I don't think so... Renewable enery should be the go (solar, hydro, wind etc)

[Casper]

Yes. I'll take 3 and stop dumping tons of crap in to the air to breathe

[Falcon Coupe]

Only if it is terrorist proof eg: armed guards and no fly zone, and we all get free power, i don't see how the government says something that is like perpetual motion costs more than coal ?

Why can't the waste be barreled and shot into space ?

[mik]

nup dont need it, solar power, wave power, hydro power, wind power plenty of other types of power generation

[xr8ute]

Yes. Bring it...

[Sourbastard]

Firstly FF, it might interest you to know that the most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapour. Nuclear power stations primary emission is, water vapour.

Secondly, I mock the entire concept of the "greenhouse effect"

Thirdly, I mock you.

[Laminge]

I think you miss the point completely with regards to nuclear power

Its not the fact that we need it, its the cost associated to produce it.

[Deadman]

The only thing that bugs me about it, is the word 'nuclear'. I won't profess to be an expert on the issue, but I head on the news something about Howard indicating it would be on the east coast...

I don't like the idea of living near a 'nuclear' power station... But that's just me... "How's the serenity..."

[montyv8]

*edited*

sorry dave i'll get back in my corner now :(

[Paris Hilton]

Yeah.

I mean Chernobyl was one case of what can go wrong.

Compared to how many nuclear stations that have been working fine?

And the waste...

Not sure, but it can't be as bad as the media makes it out to be.

[Casper]

I find it amusing that logical, so called intellegent people are comparing the safety of a modern nuke power plant built in 2007 or 2008, with the latest equipment, technology and production proceedures, run by current computing power and multiple redundant failsafe proceedures and systems with a pushole Russian nuke plant built in the 70's by people who didnt give a a damn if they lived and dies so long as they got to feed their kids one more day before being shipped off to a Gulag somewhere.
Thats like comparing a 2007 S class Merc to a 1980 Lada Niva and saying they have the same risks and issues because they are both cars.

[BJ]

All for it. The sooner the better.

[Work Horse]

I reckon we are being soften up for the real agenda, increased uranium mining.

[Mondie]

Isn't it a dead debate anyhow? The Federal government can't make it happen as electricity generation is a state controlled enterprise as set in law at Federation. All the states say no, so the answer is no. Howard has the problem of Kyoto and Global warming which is a Federal responsibility, hence why he has brought it up.

These guys have the best chance of generating renewable energy on a large scale:- www.geodynamics.com.au

[Lukeyson]

i say yes
chernobyl was ages ago, and could have been prevented.

i heard on the news though, australia has over 300 years supply of coal, so either way

[39ClevoUte]

Nuclear power is used to power most military submarines and aircraft carriers and provides 7% of the world's energy and 17% of the world's electricity. The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 20% of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percent of its energy from nuclear reactors—80% as of 2006.

What advantages does nuclear power have over fossil fuels? First, uranium oxide (U3O8) is about as abundant as tin in Earth's crust. Furthermore, a little uranium goes a long way. The amount of energy produced by the fission of a uranium atom may be very small, but there are billions of atoms to split in just one uranium fuel pellet less than a centimetre in size. In fact, one uranium pellet can produce as much energy as 800 kilogrammes of coal or 530 litres of oil. Current estimates suggest there is enough uranium contained within the world's oceans to provide an almost limitless supply of power (though technologies have to be developed to extract it first).

By comparison, a typical coal-fired power station emits some 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, one million tonnes of ash, 29,000 tonnes of nitrous oxide, 16,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, and produces 21,000 tonnes of sludge each year. And it's interesting to note that a coal-fired power station emits more radioactive material than a nuclear power station, as uranium is in coal and once burnt is released into the atmosphere via ash and dust.

Currently, around 440 nuclear power stations provide approximately 5 % of the global primary energy mix. If this figure is doubled, a corresponding number of new nuclear power stations would have to be built in the coming years. Despite this enormous effort, nuclear energy’s contribution to the primary energy mix would not be twice as high but would decrease, because, in absolute terms, world energy demand is expected to increase by at least one half in the next 25 years. To double nuclear energy’s share in the "business as usual" scenario, would in fact require not a doubling, but a tripling, of the number of reactors. Not 440 but 1,320 nuclear reactors would have to be on the grid in 25 years’ time.

[Gammaboy]

Cmon guys, get it right, its Nuc-ulear!

[39ClevoUte]

Only if a Bogan????

Nuclear power
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[PHATXR8]

Nuclear power is outrageously expensive, the reactors need MASSIVE amounts of water to produce steam which turn the turbines, and therefore have to be built on or very close to major waterways near the large population centres (where there are already water shortages, there is no solution to the waste disposal issue, the waste is highly dangerous for millions (yes, millions) of years, still emit greenhouse gasses, and it will take at least 20 years to get any up and running in Australia

On the other hand, wind power is free, cheaper to build, and non pollutive. Most major European countries (eg Germany, Denmark, Spain, etc) are now in the process of decommisioning their nuclear power plants and replacing them with wind and solar generation devices. Oh, did I mention that the USA has installed more wind power generation than any other country in the world in the past 2 years.... follow that one Johnny Howard.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by 54Ghia

Only if a Bogan????

Nuclear power
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That went over your head faster then a F-14 didnt it.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by 54Ghia

By comparison, a typical coal-fired power station emits some 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, one million tonnes of ash, 29,000 tonnes of nitrous oxide, 16,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, and produces 21,000 tonnes of sludge each year. And it's interesting to note that a coal-fired power station emits more radioactive material than a nuclear power station, as uranium is in coal and once burnt is released into the atmosphere via ash and dust.

I've suddenly had a change of heart, and couldn't give two hoots what future generations do with the waste :

[EF, What else?]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Only if it is terrorist proof eg: armed guards and no fly zone, and we all get free power, i don't see how the government says something that is like perpetual motion costs more than coal ?

Why can't the waste be barreled and shot into space ?

I think the issue would be what would happen of the means of delivery were to fail? I mean, if the waste was barreled inside a rocket of some sort, to be sent out to space, what kind of disasters would we be facing if there was a major malfunction, such as the Apollo One take off (I think it was Apollo One), or the space shuttle mishaps. And the shuttle crashes have been in the last 15 years or so. Not exactly yesterdays news.

[santoitaliano]

hrmm less oil used for energy = less demand for oil = less cost of oil

make use of technology and unused uranium!

nuclear is the way to go..

[39ClevoUte]

Some quotes....While the initial outlay for a nuclear power plant is greater than that for a fossil fuel power station, its long-term costs are not dissimilar. And, the power plant lifetime and reliability of a nuclear station is greater.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Casper

I find it amusing that logical, so called intellegent people are comparing the safety of a modern nuke power plant built in 2007 or 2008, with the latest equipment, technology and production proceedures, run by current computing power and multiple redundant failsafe proceedures and systems with a pushole Russian nuke plant built in the 70's by people who didnt give a a damn if they lived and dies so long as they got to feed their kids one more day before being shipped off to a Gulag somewhere.
Thats like comparing a 2007 S class Merc to a 1980 Lada Niva and saying they have the same risks and issues because they are both cars.

and i find it amusing that you think australia puts an importance on safety and security that costs money . i wonder which contracting firm will get to maintain these plants . and what contracts these employees will be working under.??? : our water supply is really really well maintaned isnt it . so is our transport system . .look at the railways , the m5 tunnel,30 year old cranes on the ports , that were only designed , and are written off tax wise over there life of 10 years,planes to be maintaned in the philipeans,australian cruise ship pacific sky (1959) model, military helicoptors , shall i go on. how long will these plants run . sorry . i've lost faith in australia . to interested in profit making and cutting costs and lying about it , all for the sake of covering up political negligence and blaming other parties. and by the way , we are way , way, way, behing the 8 ball when it comes to technology. not for me thanks .
oh and i should say i'm not totally anti nuclear . i'm anti f ...wit and most people couldnt pee in a toilet without wetting the floor and thats a fact . so stick with green alternatives . that way when we f... up it might cause a small flood . not a world , life ending catastrophee.

[PH47]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

and i find it amusing that you think australia puts an importance on safety and security that costs money . i wonder which contracting firm will get to maintain these plants . and what contracts these employees will be working under.??? : our water supply is really really well maintaned isnt it . so is our transport system . .look at the railways , the m5 tunnel,30 year old cranes on the ports , that were only designed , and are written off tax wise over there life of 10 years,planes to be maintaned in the philipeans,australian cruise ship pacific sky (1959) model, military helicoptors , shall i go on. how long will these plants run . sorry . i've lost faith in australia . to interested in profit making and cutting costs and lying about it , all for the sake of covering up political negligence and blaming other parties. and by the way , we are way , way, way, behing the 8 ball when it comes to technology. not for me thanks .
oh and i should say i'm not totally anti nuclear . i'm anti wit and most people couldnt pee in a toilet without wetting the floor and thats a fact . so stick with green alternatives . that way when we up it might cause a small flood . not a world , life ending catastrophee.

Eleventybillion% agreement from me.

[MethodX]

lol yes id have to agree too.