Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

Nuclear energy pros & cons by Kurzgesagt

Reply
Created by azymuth > 9 months ago, 16 May 2016
azymuth
WA, 1962 posts
16 May 2016 10:19AM
Thumbs Up

I think Kurzgesagt argues both sides succinctly. I'm in the pro camp, where do you stand?














Kamikuza
QLD, 6493 posts
16 May 2016 12:24PM
Thumbs Up

Pro until better alternatives.

Paradox
QLD, 1321 posts
16 May 2016 7:07PM
Thumbs Up

Yep, way pro...

Plus - Lease our uranium to those with nuclear power.

Dig it up and lease it for power generation then take it back and build secure deep geological disposal sites in the middle of the country. Charge a fortune for the privilege, create a massive new national industry...

Nuclear waste is not a huge headache to deal with (Expensive yes but not hard) and is considerably less toxic and deadly on a global scale than fossil fuels - by an order of magnitude.

The only challenge is to find a politician with some balls and that includes the Greens.

Mark _australia
WA, 22090 posts
16 May 2016 5:28PM
Thumbs Up

^^^ +1.

Last time the idea of burying nuclear waste in Australia was touted, the pathetic greens mounted an emotive campaign against it.
Forgetting that over 1km down in rock, in the most geologically stable place going, 2000km from civilisation, is so damn remote and that any problem is 1 in a million. Then even if that 1 in a million happens, even a major spill would not affect us.

We need to mine it and take the waste back and charge a fortune.


Ian K
WA, 4039 posts
16 May 2016 5:39PM
Thumbs Up

Yes I'm pro, until alternatives are developed it's the best strategy to reduce CO2 emissions right now. Nuclear is a safer way to generate power than coal, even now coal miners are suffering.

www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-03/up-to-1000-coal-workers-could-have-black-lung-union-claims/7216910

And we should also be generating income storing nuclear waste. What is the problem with burying it in a safe location? Even Plutonium 239 with a half life of 24,000 years. That's not even a blip in geological time, barely a blip in evolutionary time.

SandS
VIC, 5904 posts
16 May 2016 7:49PM
Thumbs Up



sounds good ..... but not in my back yard !! has to be near the sea for cooling . Who wants one at their favorite beach ?

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
16 May 2016 8:14PM
Thumbs Up

we don't need more power.....we've got plenty

sn
WA, 2775 posts
16 May 2016 6:16PM
Thumbs Up

Much like the crew above, pro nuke, and bury the leftovers someplace Maralinga-ish.

But - really would prefer the safer version of nuke power - Thorium instead of Uranium.

So, thorium nuke for baseload, with solar / wind etc for as much as they can supply.


stephen

RockyDude
WA, 1777 posts
16 May 2016 6:35PM
Thumbs Up

Interesting topic.

I watch footage from some of the "horizontal falls" in WA's north, and wonder what could be achievable with tidal power generation.

Consistent as your watch, pedictable results, zero waste/byproducts/emmisions.

Anyone that has seen the mechanical pumping known as "ram pumping", will probably suspect that there are better options out there, yet to be discovered.

Nuclear seems to me like we learned too much too quickly, and too many jumped on the ship before thinking it through.

Incidentally, Wiki suggests that a significant proportion of waste comes from the weapons industry.

Go back to bows and arrows already.

ThinkaBowtit
WA, 1134 posts
16 May 2016 6:42PM
Thumbs Up

How do you propose getting the waste to "Maralinga-ish" sites sn? Road? Rail? Hmnn, just a bit risky...

I know it's gone off the mainstream radar, but ****ushima is still alive and pumping crap into the Pacific. Then there's the stories you're not hearing about the problems in the US. Shame the fracking is causing so many earthquakes, not such a stable environment for the aging nuclear reactors.

SandS
VIC, 5904 posts
16 May 2016 8:48PM
Thumbs Up


so how about a mega nuc plant up near ord river !! plenty water for cooling and bury the waste right next door !!! win win !!

then a spider web of mega cables fanning out all over aus ..... how much votage drop would there be with nuc power ? not an issue ??

sn
WA, 2775 posts
16 May 2016 6:56PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
ThinkaBowtit said..
How do you propose getting the waste to "Maralinga-ish" sites sn? Road? Rail? Hmnn, just a bit risky...


Thorium generated power is supposed to be "a lot safer" than uranium, partly because thorium waste has a much shorter half life [or something like that]
Not needing to be stored for umpteen gazillion years like uranium based waste.
IIRC, thorium waste is ok after 150ish years - which we have the technology to handle.

The main reason the nuclear energy industry went for uranium, was that assisted in supplying materials for making A bombs.

As for transporting the stuff - bung it on either rail or truck in the containers designed for carrying nuke waste.
These things were tested by chucking out the back of aircraft, ramming with locomotives, and being blown up.
They passed all the tests.

If you follow the rules and procedures - carrying D.G. is no great deal.


stephen

RockyDude
WA, 1777 posts
16 May 2016 7:08PM
Thumbs Up

^ Why have the DG to begin with? (Appreciating your field of expertise, and my lack)

What are the downsides to tidal power generation?

kiteboy dave
QLD, 6525 posts
16 May 2016 9:12PM
Thumbs Up

Thorium is the new nuke pipe dream, not really been done successfully, and the figures don't really stack up for it to be viable.
eg
independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/dont-believe-thorium-nuclear-reactor-hype,4919

Speaking of figures not stacking up, same goes for nuclear power in general. Too expensive to bother with.

Not to mention the nimby factor- might have stood a chance of joe public forgetting Chernobyl but ****ushima's just killed that chance.

The future is most likely small scale photovoltaic (solar) generation, battery storage, network smart micro-grids with neighbors selling excess to each other during peaks. Backed up by solar thermal which yes works at night and therefore ticks the magic 'baseload' box.

https://www.solarpowerservices.com.au/news/670-solar-thermal-energy



SandS
VIC, 5904 posts
16 May 2016 9:13PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
RockyDude said..
^ Why have the DG to begin with? (Appreciating your field of expertise, and my lack)

What are the downsides to tidal power generation?



seaweed and corrosion

RockyDude
WA, 1777 posts
16 May 2016 7:14PM
Thumbs Up

Has anyone done the sums of power loss if the conductor material were solid silver?

It's seen as a valuable commodity, and today, with all the CT's out there, there's probably tons of the stuff in people's cellars etc

Bigger picture to my mind is, turn off the AC and put a jumper on, or turn off the AC and take your jumper off.

That in itself would reduce demand hugely.

RockyDude
WA, 1777 posts
16 May 2016 7:21PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
SandS said..

RockyDude said..
^ Why have the DG to begin with? (Appreciating your field of expertise, and my lack)

What are the downsides to tidal power generation?




seaweed and corrosion


Good points.

How do we quantify them without research?

Hopefully it is happening right now.

To me they're just thoughts borrowed from smart people both local and abroad, I haven't the training to offer anything more.

The footage is compelling in itself, to the raw power, potentially on tap.

ThinkaBowtit
WA, 1134 posts
16 May 2016 7:36PM
Thumbs Up

We could learn a thing or two from our nearest neighbours. At least they are giving it a damn good go, and have been since, oh before the turn of the century. The last century...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_Zealand


sn
WA, 2775 posts
16 May 2016 8:08PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
RockyDude said..
^ Why have the DG to begin with? (Appreciating your field of expertise, and my lack)?


Dangerous Goods - and the necessary transport of them - are a part of modern civilised life.

Admittedly, some things are more dangerous than others,so greater respect is due.

You name it, I've carried it - radioactives included [but not in huge quantities]

The only thing that bothered me was the paperwork involved.


Must admit though - I was a lot happier carrying bulk acid, explosives, radioactives etc, than petrol.
The results of an accident while carrying motion lotion worried me quite a bit.


stephen

Dawn Patrol
WA, 1991 posts
16 May 2016 8:09PM
Thumbs Up

I'm on the no camp.
Nuclear waste is not easy to deal with...Not a single permant storage facility worldwide in operation.

Australia is not as geologically stable as people believe. We frequently have earthquakes across the country. A leak could destroy groundwater supplies for hundreds of thousands of years.

We are talking about a by-product that stays dangerous for a period of time we have no experience with. We don't know if we can build something to last that test of time.

That's just the burrying it part.

It needs to actually get out bush first.

The second a solution is found, I'd be very pro.

There's a reason no other country has committed to burying it. Even America after spending billions cancelled their storage facility b

Mark _australia
WA, 22090 posts
16 May 2016 8:11PM
Thumbs Up

OK shoot it to the sun with a big rail gun. Gone.

Kamikuza
QLD, 6493 posts
16 May 2016 10:26PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
RockyDude said..
Interesting topic.

I watch footage from some of the "horizontal falls" in WA's north, and wonder what could be achievable with tidal power generation.

Consistent as your watch, pedictable results, zero waste/byproducts/emmisions.

Anyone that has seen the mechanical pumping known as "ram pumping", will probably suspect that there are better options out there, yet to be discovered.

Nuclear seems to me like we learned too much too quickly, and too many jumped on the ship before thinking it through.

Incidentally, Wiki suggests that a significant proportion of waste comes from the weapons industry.

Go back to bows and arrows already.


There was a company in Scotland that had, IIRC, a 5MW station providing power to distilleries, utilizing the rise and fall of waves. Some green eco show in the UK had a pair of inventors that made a smaller version on the same principles out of a PVC pipe for a pair of hobo surfers in a caravan. Totally doable, less ugly and intrusive than windmills but I don't know how much loss there'd be transmitting power from the coast inland . . . not a big issue considering the proportion of people who live near the ocean.

Company (wavegen) sold the technology and plants and then died off. Shame.

azymuth
WA, 1962 posts
16 May 2016 8:34PM
Thumbs Up

Dawn Patrol said..
I'm on the no camp.
Nuclear waste is not easy to deal with...Not a single permant storage facility worldwide in operation.

Australia is not as geologically stable as people believe. We frequently have earthquakes across the country. A leak could destroy groundwater supplies for hundreds of thousands of years.

We are talking about a by-product that stays dangerous for a period of time we have no experience with. We don't know if we can build something to last that test of time.

That's just the burrying it part.

It needs to actually get out bush first.

The second a solution is found, I'd be very pro.

There's a reason no other country has committed to burying it. Even America after spending billions cancelled their storage facility b


Have a look at Molten Salt Reactors

Not only do MSRs not have a long term waste issue, they can be used to dispose of current stockpiles of nuclear waste by using those stockpiles as fuel.

Even stockpiles of plutonium can be disposed of this way.

In fact, conventional reactors typically use only 3-to-5% of the available energy in their fuel rods before the fuel rods must be replaced because of cracking.

MSRs can use up most of the rest of the available fuel in these rods to make electricity.

www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/

RockyDude
WA, 1777 posts
16 May 2016 8:45PM
Thumbs Up

Google "horizontal falls", and it will become apparent that there is a consistent, reliable, predictable source of energy available.

Both ways by the way, both incoming and outgoing tides.

Greenies aside, "utilising" a naturally occurring fissure to produce energy is going to be unpopular if there is no coin to be made.

In this respect, I understand the bulk of the CT'ers, but for the good of the earth, and humanity, it seems the way to go.

Again, no emissions, no waste, plenty of jobs, ad infinitum.

mineral1
WA, 4564 posts
16 May 2016 9:01PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
sn said..
Much like the crew above, pro nuke, and bury the leftovers someplace Maralinga-ish.

But - really would prefer the safer version of nuke power - Thorium instead of Uranium.

So, thorium nuke for baseload, with solar / wind etc for as much as they can supply.


stephen




Exactly.
Easy to set up, and no where as volatile should something go amiss
Best bit is, Australia has considerable amounts of the stuff.

Biggest issue still here in WA, ol Charlie Court earmarked a spot in a very pristine and frequented kite and windsurf location just North of Perth. Government still has it locked down for 'future development'
Who wants that crap in your own back yard?.

sn
WA, 2775 posts
16 May 2016 9:46PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
mineral1 said..
a spot in a very pristine and frequented kite and windsurf location just North of Perth. Government still has it locked down for 'future development'


Probably the same spot that was being considered as the replacement location for the Baldivis explosives reserve.

Govt. were initially looking for a coastal spot where they could have thier own pier for unloading bulk explosives and dangerous goods loaded shipping,
Not sure what the location will be now - sadly, no more messing about with or transporting bulk kaboomy stuff.


stephen

elbeau
WA, 986 posts
16 May 2016 9:47PM
Thumbs Up

There is a helium shortage apparently. It looks to be a major problem

www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a4046/why-is-there-a-helium-shortage-10031229/

You can get helium from decaying isotopes. Apparently.

www.helium-corp.com/facts/heliumfound.html

Someone else gives us stuff. They pay us to take it. We then use it to get rich. Sounds reasonable to me.

Dawn Patrol
WA, 1991 posts
16 May 2016 9:47PM
Thumbs Up


azymuth said..

Dawn Patrol said..
I'm on the no camp.
Nuclear waste is not easy to deal with...Not a single permant storage facility worldwide in operation.

Australia is not as geologically stable as people believe. We frequently have earthquakes across the country. A leak could destroy groundwater supplies for hundreds of thousands of years.

We are talking about a by-product that stays dangerous for a period of time we have no experience with. We don't know if we can build something to last that test of time.

That's just the burrying it part.

It needs to actually get out bush first.

The second a solution is found, I'd be very pro.

There's a reason no other country has committed to burying it. Even America after spending billions cancelled their storage facility b



Have a look at Molten Salt Reactors

Not only do MSRs not have a long term waste issue, they can be used to dispose of current stockpiles of nuclear waste by using those stockpiles as fuel.

Even stockpiles of plutonium can be disposed of this way.

In fact, conventional reactors typically use only 3-to-5% of the available energy in their fuel rods before the fuel rods must be replaced because of cracking.

MSRs can use up most of the rest of the available fuel in these rods to make electricity.

www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/


So why the need to bury the waste if it can be used and made safe?

Are they currently using waste to fuel these things?

elbeau
WA, 986 posts
16 May 2016 10:02PM
Thumbs Up

The video at the top shows nuclear reactors world wide in the 1980s. There appear to be two in the eastern states of Australia. At 3:40 Apparently

Dawn Patrol
WA, 1991 posts
16 May 2016 10:19PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
elbeau said...
The video at the top shows nuclear reactors world wide in the 1980s. There appear to be two in the eastern states of Australia. At 3:40 Apparently


No electricity producing reactors though. Think they're for research and medicine??

Gizmo
SA, 2865 posts
17 May 2016 1:52AM
Thumbs Up

Future nuclear sites? There would be comming near you.

www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/np



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"Nuclear energy pros & cons by Kurzgesagt" started by azymuth