Nuclear Energy for Australia

all the ARSE dribble
User avatar
Montey
Posts: 3541
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:54 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by Montey »

In light of the current situation in Japan our political leaders have rushed to deny any plans for nuclear energy for Australia. Consequently I feel I need to have a rant against the anti-nuclear lobby and the way they are maliciously exploiting the Japanese disaster to further their political ends.

In the past 24 hours we have seen the whole anti-nuclear lobby rush to the nearest reporter to extol the virtues of a nuclear free Australia, how the events unfolding at the Japanese reactors prove that they are right and that nuclear energy is unsafe and shouldn't be considered in Australia. Yet they chose to ignore (unethically so) core facts of the situation:
I am disgusted by the way the anti-nuclear lobby in Australia, and across the world, is exploiting the Japanese disaster to further their political ends and I implore anyone who crosses paths with someone who points to the Japanese disaster to support their anti-nuclear position to put them in their place and call them out for what they are.... ignorant political opportunists exploiting the terror being experienced by the Japanese for their own agenda.

</rant>
- When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that individual is crazy.
- If youre paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many pancakes fit in a doghouse? None! Icecream doesn't have bones!!!
nutty
Spam King
Spam King
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:43 am
Location: Brisvegas

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by nutty »

I spent most of the day arguing the same points to people at work.. Ive come to the conclusion that its like having a rational conversation with a religious fundamentalist.. you spend soo long believing one thing that no amount of evidence or logic will tell you otherwise.

When people think of Nuclear power, they dont think clean, cheap and efficient energy.. they think atom bomb, chernobyl and people with 3 eyes..

Its fucking shit, cause just changing our powerplants to Nuclear energy would do soo much more for the enivornment then any sorta tax/levey
ysu
Smooth Lubricator.
Posts: 12070
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 7:48 pm
Location: The wet central coast

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by ysu »

I think those anti-nuke guys are total idiots. How's coal and oil better?!?
I mean I would not mind skipping the nuke and going all green, wind and wave and geothermal etc.
But that costs a lot, and people still complain if you put a wind turbine anywhere near them.
Meh.
Surprise, no sig. Now there is. Or is there?
User avatar
Crowella
Posts: 1592
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:56 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by Crowella »

Tell people that coal ash puts more radioactive chemicals into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant does :yes:
Image
Image
User avatar
DexterPunk
Busted ARSE
Posts: 15218
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:18 pm
Location: SE Suburbs, Melbourne
Contact:

Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by DexterPunk »

I'm all for nuclear. They have made vast improvements on the technology in recent years. Also wish they would put more development money into fusion.
User avatar
Bauer
Posts: 7259
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:00 pm
Location: Tassie
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by Bauer »

I'm for it. When a coal mine collapses the pros of nuclear gets talked up. This is just the opposite shit now that something is against.
--------------
Stu
User avatar
w00dsy
The Senna of Hoppers Crossing
Posts: 24457
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:41 pm
Location: incognito

Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by w00dsy »

People are talking up the nuclear plant issues like it's going to kill a whole bunch of people, when it's actually been the earthquake and tsunami that has done all the damage.
User avatar
norbs
fucking right wing vegan lesbian
Posts: 24178
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by norbs »

w00dsy wrote:People are talking up the nuclear plant issues like it's going to kill a whole bunch of people, when it's actually been the earthquake and tsunami that has done all the damage.

So far. Who knows what will happen if things worsen. People are still dying as a result of Chernobyl, if some reports are to be believed. I don't know the results of having fuel rods fully exposed, but I can't imagine it is real good.

Nuclear sounds good, but as soon as you say it is being built in Atomville, people all around will be up in arms about a nuclear facility in their backyard. The old NIMBY principal will raise its ugly head.

I heard this morning that Germany have has second thoughts about extending the life of their nuclear power facilities for an extra 10 years. I imagine this is exactly what you are talking about Montey.

To think that any lobby group won't jump all over a tragedy like this is a little naive I think. Like Stud said, when there is a coal mine collapse, the nuclear freaks talk up their technology. I think it is human nature. Pointing out the short comings of anything that is a direct argument to your own beliefs.
Sarc ; my second favourite type of gasm.
User avatar
DarrenM
Posts: 7251
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by DarrenM »

A sane article about a nuclear plant? That's unpossible.

Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... inion_main" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The core of a nuclear reactor operates at about 550 degrees Fahrenheit, well below the temperature of a coal furnace and only slightly hotter than a kitchen oven. If anything unusual occurs, the control rods immediately drop, shutting off the nuclear reaction. You can't have a "runaway reactor," nor can a reactor explode like a nuclear bomb. A commercial reactor is to a bomb what Vaseline is to napalm. Although both are made from petroleum jelly, only one of them has potentially explosive material.

Once the reactor has shut down, there remains "decay heat" from traces of other radioactive isotopes. This can take more than a week to cool down, and the rods must be continually bathed in cooling waters to keep them from overheating."


"If the pumps are knocked out in a Generation II reactor—as they were at Fukushima Daiichi by the tsunami—the water in the cooling system can overheat and evaporate. The resulting steam increases internal pressure that must be vented. There was a small release of radioactive steam at Three Mile Island in 1979, and there have also been a few releases at Fukushima Daiichi. These produce radiation at about the level of one dental X-ray in the immediate vicinity and quickly dissipate."


"If a meltdown does occur in Japan, it will be a disaster for the Tokyo Electric Power Company but not for the general public. Whatever steam releases occur will have a negligible impact. Researchers have spent 30 years trying to find health effects from the steam releases at Three Mile Island and have come up with nothing. With all the death, devastation and disease now threatening tens of thousands in Japan, it is trivializing and almost obscene to spend so much time worrying about damage to a nuclear reactor."


Here's another article that explains it in a bit more depth.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/f ... planation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
wobblysauce
Seen it, Done it, Invented it!
Posts: 10489
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:53 am
Location: On an Island in the south

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by wobblysauce »

Coal power stations still put out more radioactive waste and other hazardous materials while running(not including spent rods with 95% life left in them).
Some play it safe on the merry-go-round, others go for the thrills of the roller-coaster.

ᕙ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ᕗ vs ლ(ಠ益ಠ)ლ

I have a joke for you. I have a prediction that you are going to walk into a bar, my prediction was wrong and your wallet is gone.
User avatar
Montey
Posts: 3541
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:54 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by Montey »

norbs wrote:I don't know the results of having fuel rods fully exposed, but I can't imagine it is real good.
I think with this simple statement you've demonstrated why the debate is so messed up.

People, including yourself in this case norbs, express an opinion based on uninformed fear. Yes, having the fuel rods fully exposed is not good, but it is a long way from the simple equation of "fuel rods exposed = Chernobyl".

If the fuel rods are exposed they can melt, potentially (but potentially only) causing the inner containment vessel to melt through, but this immediately hits the secondary containment vessel, made of concrete, which is now flooded with sea water, meaning it is instantly cooled, preventing an actual melt down.

Everyone (most people) equate the term "melt down" with the results at Chernobyl.... but what they dont' know is that Chernobyl was a flawed design, only built in the USSR, and other country's nuclear systems can't melt down in the same way.

Edited: Whoops, bad speeling
Last edited by Montey on Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
- When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that individual is crazy.
- If youre paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many pancakes fit in a doghouse? None! Icecream doesn't have bones!!!
User avatar
wobblysauce
Seen it, Done it, Invented it!
Posts: 10489
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:53 am
Location: On an Island in the south

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by wobblysauce »

Other then the flawed design of Russian styled Chernobyl, there have been many designs since then to make sure it cant happen with fail safes put in place. newest ones atm are stage 6 and are more of a moduler design need more power and another module.
Last edited by wobblysauce on Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some play it safe on the merry-go-round, others go for the thrills of the roller-coaster.

ᕙ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ᕗ vs ლ(ಠ益ಠ)ლ

I have a joke for you. I have a prediction that you are going to walk into a bar, my prediction was wrong and your wallet is gone.
User avatar
VTRacing
Team Pedant (c)
Posts: 4651
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:14 am

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by VTRacing »

Flawed. :teach:
:teach:
User avatar
Dr. Pain
Posts: 7431
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:17 pm
Location: Benalla, Victoria

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by Dr. Pain »

I think nuclear power is viable. The events in Japan are terrible but although this plant was designed to withstand such events there is only one way to test such systems. Now if the earthquake didn't happen that station would have run for say 45/50 years with no problems and we'd never hear about it. As soon as theres an issue then it's doom and gloom. If anything good does come from this it would be the collection of knowledge because this type of event has never happened. Even for new stations so much will be learnt from this event.

Now for us I believe solar power is the way to go. Here in Benalla we get lots of sunny days and to make power from that makes sense. I don't own the house I live in so not really an option for me. I would encourage solar powered homes and have good storage systems so we'd never need to use the grid in our personal lives. But that's not an option at the moment. But putting solar power into the grid and having some form of nuclear power would greatly reduce the need for brown coal. Greed will kill this though as companies won't make gazillion dollar profits.
Minister for Religious Genocide.
User avatar
norbs
fucking right wing vegan lesbian
Posts: 24178
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by norbs »

Montey wrote:
norbs wrote:I don't know the results of having fuel rods fully exposed, but I can't imagine it is real good.
I think with this simple statement you've demonstrated why the debate is so messed up.

People, including yourself in this case norbs, express an opinion based on uninformed fear. Yes, having the fuel rods fully exposed is not good, but it is a long way from the simple equation of "fuel rods exposed = Chernobyl".

If the fuel rods are exposed they can melt, potentially (but potentially only) causing the inner containment vessel to melt through, but this immediately hits the secondary containment vessel, made of concrete, which is now flooded with sea water, meaning it is instantly cooled, preventing an actual melt down.

Everyone (most people) equate the term "melt down" with the results at Chernobyl.... but what they dont' know is that Chernobyl was a floored design, only built in the USSR, and other country's nuclear systems can't melt down in the same way.
I wasn't saying it was anything but, not good. As I said, I didn't know the results of it. I didn't have any other facts on hand, that's why I said it was probably no good. My opinion was based on the fact that they would normally not be exposed, that was all. And I am pretty sure I wasn't comparing it to Chernobyl. I don't even know if the reports regarding Chernobyl are correct, thus the statement "People are still dying as a result of Chernobyl, if some reports are to be believed." I was just pointing out that there may be people affected in the future by any radiation that may escape. I don't even know if any has escaped.

Before reading that report that Darren linked to, I was only about 75% sold on nuclear. But, after reading it and a few other reports this morning, it seems it is a lot safer than the one in Springfield run my Monty Burns. So now, I'm on board. I still think green solutions should be looked at, whether that be solar, wind, tide or geothermal.
Sarc ; my second favourite type of gasm.
User avatar
Rots
DiscoStu
DiscoStu
Posts: 4602
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:42 am
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by Rots »

Everything we do and develop improves over time as we learn new and better ways to combat/prevent issues that have happened or issues that are arising. This is proven by earthquake resistant buildings and motor vehicle safety etc

You certainly can not say a powerplant from 40 years ago is as safe as a plant designed today. You might as well say an E-Type Jag is safter than a new model Jag... They are simply not comparable.

The nuclear powerplant disaster in Japan shouldn't be the reason to prevent the development of a nuclear powerplant here.

Personally though, I fear nuclear power/weapons and wouldn't want it in my back yard (meaning anywhere in mainland Australia... Tasmania is fine j/k :D )
User avatar
norbs
fucking right wing vegan lesbian
Posts: 24178
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by norbs »

Pretty good summary of the nuclear reactor here.. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/qa-th ... 1bujx.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sarc ; my second favourite type of gasm.
User avatar
VTRacing
Team Pedant (c)
Posts: 4651
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:14 am

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by VTRacing »

Put it in my backyard, I don't care.
:teach:
User avatar
richo
Posts: 3471
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:45 pm
Location: The Shire, The insular peninsula .
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by richo »

The point about not having one in your suburb is pretty right , I worked not too far away from Lucas Heights and the locals were always kicking up a stink about the place . But i was there eight years and never really even thought about it or worried about the thing .

Funny thing is a lot of the people that bitched worked for ANSTO or had family that did , amazing how many non techo job positions there were.

Anyways whats wrong with having a permanent orange afro?
[]D [] []v[] []D
User avatar
Vilante
Master artist
Master artist
Posts: 9336
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 9:32 am
Location: Sydney - Australia

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by Vilante »

richo wrote:Anyways whats wrong with having a permanent orange afro?
Makes you drive a Formula Ford fast.
User avatar
EzyRider
Posts: 1258
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:19 pm
Location: State of inebriation.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by EzyRider »

Vilante wrote:
richo wrote:Anyways whats wrong with having a permanent orange afro?
Makes you drive a Formula Ford fast.
Ba doom ching Image
Middle Pack Racing Watch your mirrors!

Norbs on Germaine Greer: "..that crusty old slag can tongue kiss my quivering sphincter muscle, fuck her and the pretentious boat she fucking sailed in on."
User avatar
norbs
fucking right wing vegan lesbian
Posts: 24178
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by norbs »

Here is one for the coal vs nuclear debate...

http://epeus.blogspot.com/2002/04/ban-h ... ow-us.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sarc ; my second favourite type of gasm.
pab
Posts: 2486
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 11:40 pm

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by pab »

I might be misreading that article and the documents it linked to, but isn't it comparing the mass of high level waste from nuclear power plants to an estimation of the amount (again mass, not amount of radioactivity) of low level waste from coal. They totally ignore the fact that nuclear power also produces low level waste, they seem to have just chosen to leave this out fo the equation.
Low-level waste disposed of in commercial sites makes up about a third of all accumulated low-level waste in the United States; the remaining two-thirds has been generated by DOE activities and sent to DOE-owned disposal sites. About 320,000 cubic feet of commercial low-level waste was shipped to disposal sites in 1997. The volume of commercial low-level radioactive waste peaked in 1980 and fell sharply in the 1990s, primarily because of escalating disposal fees.

The vast majority of commercial low-level waste typically consists of the least hazardous "Class A" waste. In 1997, nuclear utilities generated nearly two-thirds of the volume of commercially disposed low-level waste, industrial activities accounted for about a fourth, government for less than 10%, academic activities for about 2%, and medical institutions for less than 1%, according to DOE. About 85% of the radioactivity came from utility waste. Nuclear utilities' share of total volume and radioactivity is expected to rise when current reactors are decommissioned, because significant numbers of components have become radioactive during operation and will be disposed of as low-level waste -- some of it relatively long-lived.
It's been a while since I've been involved in science, and my knowledge of this sort of stuff has slipped a bit, but how can they compare a mass of high level nuclear waste with a mass of (very diluted) low level coal waste, and ignore the low level waste from nuclear and use that as a basis for the argument that -
Getting us weaned from coal generation onto nuclear and other alternatives should be the focus of energy policy.
PB
Radioactive Race Engineering #16 / Lightning Karts KT100s #61
User avatar
Durrie
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:40 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by Durrie »

Build a bunch of them and make them part of the remediation of the coal mine pits and coal power stations we will no longer need. Seems like it would benefit any back yards that might adjoin rather than detract from them.
User avatar
J.D.
Rat
Posts: 6666
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:10 pm
Location: Under a rock somewhere in Australia

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Post by J.D. »

I feel a bit like a Christian Scientist with an Appendicitis.

I'm a greenie. Not a hard-core, long haired, kaftan-wearing tree-hugger but one who believes in the principles of sustainability and conservation as a basic tenet.

I have no major problem with nuclear energy as long as it is done sensibly. Building a nuclear reactor on a fault line is hardly sensible. The difficulty is going to be persuading people that there's any benefit in living next door to one. As an inner city resident I'm the last person likely to be affected by it anyway.

The future as I see it doesn't lie with nuclear energy as it is currently produced. Fission is not sustainable in the long term because the world will use up the appropriate supplies of fuel in the next hundred years or so. It's also one of the more expensive methods. On the other hand, you could build a handful of reactors and replace them with tokamaks when fusion becomes practical. In the meantime, you simply bolster as much as you can with alternate energy supplies such as geothermal.

I think most of us are agreed that the potential penalties of nuclear energy are less than the penalties for coal. Clean coal is bullshit and geosequestration makes even less sense. You might as well bury spent fuel rods in the holes. At least it won't all leak out like carbon would.

Now I'm off for a quick rendition of Kumbaya while the tofu and mung bean stew cooks.
сначала мы убиваем американского лося и белку.

"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell.

Proudly never a mod or admin at RSC from 2001 - 2009.
Post Reply