Jump to content
The Corroboree

Your opinion on nuclear power  

123 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Every man made or conceived system is always going to have SOME kind of downside, thing is we tend to hear about it only after we've all gotten used to the upsides. When all you have heard in PRACTICAL terms is Chernobyl, Hiroshima, leaking containment bays in built-on-the-cheap uranium mines in the NT, and have yet to have a nice cup of "atomic coffee" or read a classic work of fiction by the light of your cheerfully glowing bedfellow, it IS hard to be unbiased or entirely intellectual about the nuclear question. I hear there's only enough of the yellow shit laying around to keep even a fraction of earth nuclear fueled for the next 80 years, or something... and in the meantime we need to invest massive amounts of traditionally generated energy and fuel to get the shit out of the ground.. usually at the expense of the local residents, as in all things, whether they are microorganisms in a billabong or unamused macroorganisms wondering why they get sick a lot since Ranger went in upstream.

wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, all have their upsides.. but I think most of the downsides of any energy production come into play mainly during transit...either getting fuel, or getting the outcome, from A to B... rather than looking at a Big MoFo Nuclear Plant to fix everyones problems, we could probably make enough hot water for a streets worth of people to have hot showers just from burning all that bloody junk mail that turns up :P Ok not quite... but a locally relevant approach seems important. EVERYONE'S locality, not just the well fed and educated end users.

Nuclear hasn't made a real mess of anywhere for a lil while, it's true... but that's to me a little like saying "i know tigers are quite vicious, but I've been using this one as a footwarmer for a couple nights now and it hasn't eaten me yet".. in civic and social planning the worst case scenario always has to be considered, not necessarily dwelt upon, but certainly looked at long and hard. One thing I have noticed is that people without kids tend (just IME) to be more likely pro nuclear or undecided than people with kids... one chernobyl doco too many, maybe I just like my offspring to have brains forming INSIDE their skulls. Maybe , irrationally, I find the black choking smoke from traditional energy generation gone wrong a little less threatening than the idea of some insidious, almost eternal toxic agent that yes, will be locked away in the desert for now... bummer if some smartarse drops a rocket into it on a day whe nthe wind is blowing towards a major city, though. And we think those occasional dust storms that roll out of the dry areas set off sickness NOW. Or maybe due to unforseen events the location of the dump may be lost, those charged with its care become distracted, disbanded, discontinued..what do we do with it then? I know all this also applies to factories producing pesticides, medical waste storage, disease research, etc.. but with that many things already presenting a similar risk, why go building another one?

Coal, gas, oil... blatant downsides, and in a cumulative sense it would seem just as lethal as poorly managed rads. But it HAS been a while since an exploding oil refinery flatted my house... course to get the good stuff to run thru the refinery, there is a good chance someone else had their house flattened, one way or another. Damn, going to take a direct debit setup with Wilderness Society to get over this sense of first world guilt!

The only certainly to me is that we simply cannot keep living the way we live... it was "ok" in a social sense, when the downside was mainly felt in exploited developing countries, poor areas etc... but like Johnny Howard or meth, now that the bad things are bothering Nice White Folks With Good Jobs, suddenly its a priority to have the spun aluminium water bottle, the fistful of lonely planet books, carbon offsets for your local juice bar, nature themed desktops, eat things labelled "organic" and buy a whole new car cos it runs on fuel only half the time, despite that fact the car you already have works just FINE and has already been manufactured... maintaining the same systems but with slightly disguised products isn't going to help. It makes drones feel better, and has its "oh but you know man, its raising awareness that matters" value of course.. but a flat tire needs changing, or the road needs improving, rather than just sitting around sipping shiraz explaining how "oh i really worry about the roads and flat tires, so i send money to hungry kids in africa" . A greater tolerance all round for doing outlandish things like growing veggies on your roof, using greywater for something useful and running your own still is the necessity now. being happy enough to poo on your own property and keep it there, grow your own cold n flu medication and decide television is shit anyway... though those lovely documentaries that tell us on a weekly basis how "you're all fucking doomed!" are certainly uplifting. Bummer they took up even more time/energy/resources/bullshit to produce in the first place. Maybe we can render Al Gore into useful basic compounds and run our cars on his portly self for a while, use those nice suits as insulation in our geodesic domes. Take the roof off his house and turn it into a market garden for local poor families or something.

Also has to be remembered that no matter what the "dominant tech" turns out to be in times to come, it will be managed, produced and provided by the lowest bidder or the most well connected bidder... clean and green can go down n brown pretty quickly in the wrong hands, like all the treehuggers that want to move out of town and run the house on firewood...then realise that woodsmoke is one of the worlds greatest pollutants even now, and a leading cause of death in the developing world. I hear asthma puffers sell really well in places like Launceston, assuming you can see the chemist from your house to start with. When the same fuel burnt in a better designed and managed sytem can easily have 3/4 of its nastiness cut down.. double combustion and the like.

On purely aesthetic terms, I think wind gen looks the nicest... something terrifyingly serene in those massive blades flying around, like big berserker sunflowers. A mate worked out he can run an mp3 player off a turbine set in the top of a dozen car tires sitting in the sun. People are inventive, and if one day there simply wasnt power coming out of the wall on a reliable basis, we'd adapt. Eventually, in the meantime there'd be a lot of deceptively cheap solutions to our problems, whining, general wailing and gnashing of teeth. But we'd live. Quite possibly for longer, and with real memories, real stories, not "hey did you see what happened on that entirelyl fictitious show full of fake people I don't actually know?". An unplugged life might be a lil dimmer of a night time, but I suspect its a lot brighter during the day.

"he said, from from his mains powered laptop..." though it is nearly 10 years old :lol:

VM

:):lol: :lol: i would like to give you a great hug how i thirst for truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An official study from the German government shows the risk of getting cancer is increasing for children growing up in the neighborhood of a nuclear power station. This is in particular true for leukemia, a special case of cancer.....Germany has already decided to phase out nuclear power plants by 2020, this study is now heating up the discussion whether the phase out of nuclear technology should be accelerated.

http://timeforchange.org/nuclear-power-sta...cancer-leukemia

1. Nuclear waste — The waste from nuclear power plants will be toxic for humans for more than 100,000 years. It’s untenable now to secure and store all of the waste from the plants that exist. To scale up to 2,500 or 3,000, let alone 17,000 plants is unthinkable.

Nuclear proponents hope that the next generation of nuclear plants will generate much less waste, but this technology is not yet fully developed or proven. Even if new technology eventually can successful reduce the waste involved, the waste that remains will still be toxic for 100,000 years. There will be less per plant, perhaps, but likely more overall, should nuclear power scale up to 2,500, 3,000 or 17,000 plants. No community should have to accept nuclear waste site, or even accept the risks of nuclear waste being transported through on route to its final destination. The waste problem alone should take nuclear power off the table.

The Bush administration’s solution – a national nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain – is over budget and won’t provide a safe solution either. The people of Nevada don’t want that nuclear waste facility there. Also, we would need to transfer the waste to this facility from plants around the country and drive it there – which puts communities across the country at risk.

2. Nuclear proliferation – In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al Gore said, “During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program.” Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We can’t develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries.

Here too, nuclear power proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk of proliferation from any given plant, but again, the technology is not there yet. If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in the rest of the world, we need to get serious here at home, and not push the next generation of nuclear proliferation forward as an answer to climate change. There is simply no way to guarantee that nuclear materials will not fall into the wrong hands.

3. National Security – Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive target for terrorists. In researching the security around nuclear power plants, Robert Kennedy, Jr. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant.

That’s more, Kennedy has sailed boats right into the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant on the Hudson River outside of New York City not just once but twice, to point out the lack of security around nuclear plants. The unfortunate fact is that our nuclear power plants remain unsecured, without adequate evacuation plans in the case of an emergency. Remember the government response to Hurricane Katrina, and cross that with a Chernobyl-style disaster to begin to imagine what a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant might be like.

4. Accidents – Forget terrorism for a moment, and remember that mere accidents – human error or natural disasters – can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400,000 people, with thousands poisoned by radiation.

Here in the US, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a clean-up effort that ultimately lasted for nearly 15 years, and topped more than one billion dollars in cost. The cost of cleaning up after one of these disasters is simply too great, in both dollars and human cost – and if we were to scale up to 17,000 plants, is it reasonable to imagine that not one of them would ever have a single meltdown? Many nuclear plants are located close to major population centers. For example, there’s a plant just up the Hudson from New York City. If there was an accident, evacuation would be impossible.

5. Cancer – There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer – even when a plant has an accident-free track record. One Texas study found increased cancer rates in north central Texas since the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant was established in 1990, and a recent German study found childhood leukemia clusters near several nuclear power sites in Europe.

According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, a nuclear energy expert, nuclear power plants produce numerous dangerous, carcinogenic elements. Among them are: iodine 131, which bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk and can induce thyroid cancer; strontium 90, which bio-concentrates in milk and bone, and can induce breast cancer, bone cancer, and leukemia; cesium 137, which bio-concentrates in meat, and can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma; and plutonium 239. Plutonium 239 is so dangerous that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic, and can cause liver cancer, bone cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer, and birth defects. Because safe and healthy power sources like solar and wind exist now, we don’t have to rely on risky nuclear power.

6. Not enough sites – Scaling up to 17,000 – or 2,500 or 3,000 — nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear power.

There are many communities around the country that simply won’t allow a new nuclear plant to be built – further limiting potential sites. And there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe because of political instability and the high risk of proliferation. In short, geography, local politics, political instability and climate change itself, there are not enough sites for a scaled up nuclear power strategy.

Remember that climate change is causing stronger storms and coastal flooding, which in turn reduces the number of feasible sites for nuclear power plants. Furthermore, due to all of the other strikes against nuclear power, many communities will actively fight against nuclear plants coming into their town. How could we get enough communities on board to accept the grave risks of nuclear power, if we need to build 17, let alone, 17,000 new plants?

7. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world’s electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years.

As uranium supplies dwindle, nuclear plants will actually begin to use up more energy to mine and mill the uranium than can be recovered through the nuclear reactor process. What’s more, dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium, which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22.

8. Costs – Some types of energy production, such as solar power, experience decreasing costs to scale. Like computers and cell phones, when you make more solar panels, costs come down. Nuclear power, however, will experience increasing costs to scale. Due to dwindling sites and uranium resources, each successive new nuclear power plant will only see its costs rise, with taxpayers and consumers ultimately paying the price.

What’s worse, nuclear power is centralized power. A nuclear power plant brings few jobs to its local economy. In contrast, accelerating solar and energy efficiency solutions creates jobs good-paying, green collar, jobs in every community.

Around the world, nuclear plants are seeing major cost overruns. For example, a new generation nuclear plant in Finland is already experiencing numerous problems and cost overruns of 25 percent of its $4 billion budget. The US government’s current energy policy providing more than $11 billion in subsidies to the nuclear energy could be much better spent providing safe and clean energy that would give a boost to local communities, like solar and wind power do. Subsidizing costly nuclear power plants directs that money to large, centralized facilities, built by a few large companies that will take the profits out of the communities they build in.

9. Private sector unwilling to finance – Due to all of the above, the private sector has largely chosen to take a pass on the financial risks of nuclear power, which is what led the industry to seek taxpayer loan guarantees from Congress in the first place.

As the Nuclear Energy Institute recently reported in a brief to the US Department of Energy, “100 percent loan coverage [by taxpayers] is essential … because the capital markets are unwilling, now and for the foreseeable future, to provide the financing necessary” for new nuclear power plants. Wall Street refuses to invest in nuclear power because the plants are assumed to have a 50 percent default rate. The only way that Wall Street will put their money behind these plants is if American taxpayers underwrite the risks. If the private sector has deemed nuclear power too risky, it makes no sense to force taxpayers to bear the burden.

And finally, even if all of the above strikes against nuclear power didn’t exist, nuclear power still can’t be a climate solution because there is …

10. No time – Even if nuclear waste, proliferation, national security, accidents, cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport, lack of sites, increasing costs, and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance the projects weren’t enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate change, the final nail in nuclear’s coffin is time. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change. It simply isn’t possible to build 17,000 – or 2,500 or 17 for that matter – in ten years.

http://msorganiclady.wordpress.com/2008/02...-nuclear-power/

The nuclear power industry is about generating money for it's backers & weapons for it's governments. It is neither safe nor green, & will do nothing to solve our energy problems.

nonukes2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The depleted uranium waste produced can be further reacted using a proven technology that needs more research, look at the breeder reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

It can use depleted uranium.

There is an interesting article I read on the release of radioactive particles from coal combustion

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-...xt/colmain.html

I'm not sure how accurate the numbers are but it seems that coal produces more harmful radioactive waste than what is contained in a reactor.

When the next generation of reactors is introduced we wont have to worry about depleted uranium being produced and used for weapons.

There is currently a new type of reactor being used in China called a pebble-bed reactor, it does not require a traditional cooling system and if there is a malfunction it will simple stop reacting instead of going in to meltdown. It doesn't require liquid cooling, it uses air flow.

It is true that there is not much uranium but in the near future it will be possible to use thorium which is vastly abundant. It is possible to convert Thorium-232 into U-233 in reactors specially designed for the purpose. In this way, Thorium can be used to breed U-233 nuclear fuel. U-233 is also believed to have favourable nuclear properties as compared to traditionally used U-235.

I think solar, wind, geothermal etc is great too but we need to look at all possibilities to reduce pollution

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and if one day there simply wasnt power coming out of the wall on a reliable basis, we'd adapt. Eventually, in the meantime there'd be a lot of deceptively cheap solutions to our problems, whining, general wailing and gnashing of teeth. But we'd live. Quite possibly for longer, and with real memories, real stories, not "hey did you see what happened on that entirelyl fictitious show full of fake people I don't actually know?". An unplugged life might be a lil dimmer of a night time, but I suspect its a lot brighter during the day.

One problem being all the lifesaving equipment we have that needs power to run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definately for nuclear!

1)We have the raw materials...ie uranium

2)Its better than selling this 'crap' to questionable nations!

3)Have the best place to store waste...ie WA(being one of the oldest and least geologically active land masses on the planet)

4)Cough...cough this coal smog is making me sick...but the warmer, slightly more humid temps are a +

I could think of more but i have too much homework i should be doing right now

Oh...and if we are going to keep digging this stuff up i prefer it goes into reactors...not bombs...if you have never been to hiroshima you should really go...it is amazing and extremely disturbing what someone can do with the press of a button!

Edited by Mr Stay Puft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep sure is disturbing. would the nuke generators somehow be bomb proof? having generators all over the world in rich countries and highly populated areas is probably more dangerous than shipping uranium free of charge to anyone who wants it. its pretty clear nuclear energy is dangerous no matter how its used, or how efficiently, there's still gonna be the shit load of waste left over, which as posted numerous times, will last there for longer than we humans can even fathom. so typical of humans.. go for the quickest, easiest, cheapest quick-fix available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear Power is Not Good (fission anyway). I'm astonished at the support it is getting in this forum.

I thought that the government (and certain intrest groups) just want nuclear power so we would have the capability of producing Nuclear Weapons in the future if we/they chose to. Really - there is no other real reason is there?

1) Nuclear power is cheap after initial setup cost

2) Its clean compared to other energy sources like coal

3) Quite safe, one mentioned more people have died from installing solar panals then from nuclear power in the last 20 years.

4) Nuclear waste has a bad reputation

5) Not much waste is produced per year

6) Providing its stored in a lead container and it doesnt leach the radioactive particles (alpha, beta and gamma) wont travel far enough to cause anyone any harm.

1) Its not cheep.

If you include setup, maintenance, running costs, closedown +dismantaling, storing the whole structure as low and medium level nuclear waist, storage and security of spent fuel (for how many thousand years?), causing the land which the power plant stood on to be FUSSIONno-longer suitable for habitation.

2)Clean compared with Coal?

Like anthrax is clean compared with the dirty soil.

3)Safer than Solar?

I'm sure that it's not the case if you include;- deaths in the installation of nuclear power plants, mining uranium, Nuclear Accidents (the ones that we all know about plus leaked Radioactive Contamination from reactors (Such as in the UK and Japan - two of the more Reputable nuclear countries (so you can imagine what the rest have managed to coverup)), AND THEN Radioactive contamination from the site, from the Dismantaled Reactor and from the Spent fuel (Which is still very radioactive for many thousand of years)

In the last 20 years we created lethal material that will last thousands of years. - Safer than Solar?

4)Bad reputation.

Wonder why? Might be something to do with severe genetic deforaties and cancer - lasting for thousands of years. and a bad safety record.

5)Not Much Waist per year?

But if this waste remains deadly toxic for tens of thousands .....

6)Providing its stored in a lead container and it doesnt leach the radioactive particles (alpha, beta and gamma) wont travel far enough to cause anyone any harm.

I Think That The Key Word Here Is AND.

Sorry, I just hate seeing these trickily worded justifications for nuclear proliferation go uncontested.

I'm not against countries having nuclear power

I couldn't care less if Aust' sells it to them

We have too many renewable options in Australia - for the same setup cost we could get better value

We do not need Nuclear (Fission anyway, and it will be a long time before Aust' get Fussion)

Nuclear Power Plants need to be located within reach of a good water supply (for the steam turbines)

Nuclear Power Plants need to be located on the main power grid proximal to where the power will be used to minimize power carrying infrastructure and minimize power loss during transport. (We can't just put them out in the desert or somewhere)

FUSSION POWER - on the other hand

Hydrogen + hydrogen = Helium + energy

FUSSION not FISSION - JOIN TOGETHER Not DIVISION

Theres a massive Fussion Reactor being built in France ITER a group of many countries from around the world to trial techniques and the vability of Fussion Power plants (The main problem in the past is that they have to be very big to work effectivly. ITRE shold be big enough.

Construction should be completed by 2017

A very user friendly web site ITER http://www.iter.org/

THE FUTURE IS FUSSION

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fusion is practically impossible. I dont think any of us will see them come even close to making a fusion reactor in ours or the next generations life.

Ill get into the reasons when ive got a little more time but the future is fuel cells supplied with methane that pours out of our tips and sewage plants.

Fuel cells are 90+% efficient as compared with all heat/turbine plants at 30% or less.

Fusion is only feasible as a power source for massive interstellar vehicles. How can you contain the power of the sun on our planet...and then what the hell do you do with it in order to turn it into electricity.

And renewable is all well and good but it just cant sustain massive populations. Id prefer to see some small nuclear reactor built than they destory natural desert ecosystems putting damn solar cells all over the shop.

And i just dont agree with the fact that we should be shipping our uranium anywhere...other countries just cant be trusted........

Also it aint just as easy as putting hydrogen together to make helium.....and where do you get the hydrogen from?????

Edited by Mr Stay Puft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test FUSION Reactors have been built by Russia, UK, US, Japan from the 1960's

Sorry Fusion is spelt with only one "S"

The plasma can be held by a magnetic field (a large electromagnet) -The reason that they have to be quite large is because alot of power is needed to maintain the electromagnet.

In previous fussion plants the power needed to maintain the magnetic field is grater than the power produced.

In these early test reactors a power plant had to be set up to maintain the magnetic field.

Fusion is only feasible as a power source for massive interstellar vehicles. How can you contain the power of the sun on our planet...and then what the hell do you do with it in order to turn it into electricity.

I totaly agree :wink: I call this massive interstellar vehicle "Earth" or "Gia" when around friends :lol:

In order to turn this energy into electricity we need large steam turbines - like those which we use for for Coal, Biomass or Nuclear Fission Power Plants.

Fusion is practically impossible. I dont think any of us will see them come even close to making a fusion reactor in ours or the next generations life.

Please Checkout http://www.iter.org/

It's probably the only positive thing that future generations/history will remember of our generation

I have added an exert from the web (referenced of course)

10 years later (in 1968) results from the Russians Tamm and Sakharov using a new type of magnetic confinement device called a tokamak caused a major stir. Their experiment ran at temperatures ten times higher (10 million degrees centigrade) than anywhere else in the world with excellent confinement results.

The success of the Russians, confirmed by visiting UK scientists in 1969, led to the construction of many tokamak experiments and its position as the dominant technique for fusion research today.

In 1978 the JET project was launched in Europe coming into operation in 1983. The Japanese tokamak JT-60 came online in 1985. In 1991, JET produced for the first time in the world, a significant amount of power (1.7MW or 1.7 million watts) from controlled nuclear fusion reactions. Subsequently, in 1993 the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) device in Princeton produced 10 MW of power with a plasma fuelled by a 50/50 mix of deuterium and tritium.

(http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/fu/fu_int/article_1247_en.htm Downloaded 02/11/2008)

Also it aint just as easy as putting hydrogen together to make helium....

Yep your fairly right - 'Heavy Hydrogen' works best (deuterium and tritium - Hydrogen atoms with extra neutrons in their nucleolus)

These occure naturaly but have to be sorted out from normal Hydrogen.

...and where do you get the hydrogen from?????

It's by far the most abundent element in the Universe. 2 out of every 3 atoms that make up water is Hydrogen (H2O).

I love all other forms or renewable energy but FUSSION HAS A HUGE FUTURE

And renewable is all well and good but it just cant sustain massive populations.

This is why i do not object to other countries using nuclear

And why Australia doesn't need it.

Have you see wind power generators in reel life? They are so much bigger, more beautifully and majestic than the pictures give then credit for!!

I would love to have one in my back yard (if I had a back yard!)

I think your right about Fuel Cells, they sound like a great thing but I don't know much about them.

I should probably Read up. let us know if you've got any favorite links. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeh it is pretty abundant in the universe...pity its all in stars and bonded to oxygen in a thing called water...how do we get it out of water...more electricity....im sorry but fusion is just not feasible and will most likely always remain that way

and as i said before anything with a steam turbine is less than 30% efficient considering most of the energy is lost as wasted steam....

fuel cells can use up other greenhouse gases and make electrical energy via a chemical reaction making it over 90% efficient...

Edited by Mr Stay Puft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Done a little web search - wikapidia reckons most fuel cells use normal hydrocarbon fuels and produce Carbon dioxide and water like normal combustion dose. They can use HYDROGEN however it first needs to be separated from water (Using electricity I suppose, and releases a minute fraction of energy compared with Fusion).

Wikapidia also reckons that most fuel cell systems are between 10 and 60% efficient

The only system at 90% efficentcy is 'Molten phosphoric acid (H3PO4) co-generation fuel cells'

Co-generation involves simultaneously generate both electricity and useful heat.

It seems they have potential to replace combustion micro generators however they don't seem to do much for the environment.

But I suppose developing this technology may make it more useful in the future.

Edited by RockHammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the hydrocarbons you are using are methane...would have been released into atmosphere anyway. and its the 90% efficiency that makes it worthwhile (dont know about wikis numbers there but i can assure you they are much more efficient than any steam turbine)...its not like normal combustion because you are not heating up water to turn a turbine and then letting all that energy flow out the top...it is direct chemical energy and apart from loss in transport every single electron released is usable...

the only issue is it produces DC. but there are ways of dealing with that

if all the methane we release from dumps and sewage was turned into CO2, whilst producing energy, and we turned off all our coal plants then the world would be fine

we do infact require co2 otherwise all plants on earth would most certainly die...and we would soon follow suit

As for renewable tidal would be very beneficial for australias 2 major harbour cities.

Edited by Mr Stay Puft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither for nor against.

I'd prefer a renewable enviromentally friendly power source to become recongised, researched and implemented as an alternative but lets face it, it's not going to happen any time soon.

My better half lives 1km as the crow flies from Ansto and we've never experienced, heard of or seen any problems relating to nuclear power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear energy is not a long-term solution to energy needs, uranium the "fuel" for the nuclear power plants is finite, you would be amazed how many people think nuclear energy is renewable. During the nuclear power generation cycle only 5% of the uranium in fuel rods is used and it can be re-processed, all these processes create toxic/radioactive wastes and have inherent dangers. Nuclear powered stations also have a huge initial investment and although during there proposed lifetime, ranging from 30-40yrs, they provide cheap energy nuclear plants are often in operation way past there projected close time because of the huge cost in shutting down operations, we all remember Chernobyl and 3mile island.

Australia has vast reserves of uranium ore, but is it ethical to export this to nuclear nations, are we responsible for its end use and destination?. Much of the radioactive waste created from nuclear power generation is shipped to third world countries for isolation and storage, this is a major source of income for some countries. Is this how business should be conducted? should 3rd world countries have to suffer due to our nuclear hunger, should Australia be responsible for nuclear waste? or should nuclear nations?.Would nuclear power be a major power source if nations had to store their own waste?

Australia has major potential when it comes to renewable energies, wind, solar, wave and tidal. Each source has its pros and cons but through research, development and planning could and should become the major energy sources for Australia. Australia needs a major shift in values, our government prefers to invest billions in a communication network rather than lay the ground work for our sustainable development.

"sustainable development - development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" Bruntland report.

b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuseme for my poor english. But Nuclear power its a natural energy like light of the sun, winds, etc.

Earth nucleous is a kind of Big nuclear power station. Its the reason because the high temperatures of heart of Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_(geology)

The planet's internal heat was originally generated during its accretion, due to gravitational binding energy, and since then additional heat has continued to be generated by decay heat from the radioactive decay of elements. Radioactive isotopes of uranium, thorium, and potassium are the largest contributors to the earths decay heat. The heat flow from the interior to the surface is only 1/20,000 as great as the energy received from the Sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My better half lives 1km as the crow flies from Ansto and we've never experienced, heard of or seen any problems relating to nuclear power.

ANSTO doesn't produce power. Not even for their own buildings. The (very small) reactor provides a source for the beamlines and medical isotopes for RPA's nuclear medicine division only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wave energy is what i reckon for those on the coast... Check out Carnegie (ASX:CNM) and their CETO get up...

Buoys submerged in the ocean which move with the swell (underwater, so don't get massacred in big storms) and these drive simple setups underwater which pump water to the mainland at 1000PSI. This then works turbines or simialr to produce pawer - the sea water can then be used in a desal operation... This is gonna be big, awaiting Aus gov funding, but already havign interest from bermuda, and the US...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear industry like other industry creates bulky rubbish ­ paper, plastics, gloves, clothing, equipment, tools ­ with the difference that it is radioactive.

Some of this rubbish was buried at sea until action by Greenpeace and nations with fishing interests caused the practice to be banned. Much of this radioactive rubbish has been buried in shallow land graves or sometimes in disused mines. Plutonium and other radioactive elements have migrated from these dumps into the surrounding environment.

The more highly contaminated rubbish, classed as intermediate level, is made up of the cladding on fuel rods, glove boxes for handling plutonium, sludges and other waste contaminated with long-lived transuranic elements.

Britain will bury intermediate-level waste in trenches roofed and lined with concrete. Waste, broken into bits, will be dumped into the trenches and mixed in concrete 'like currents in a cake'.

Source

If Nuclear power is to be used, isn't it fair to expect that the mess made to 'perfect' the technology is cleaned up first?

DOH! I'm dreamin' again, ain't I? :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forum energy: I've been running my house off the arguments generated in the 'bitches and gripes' section for several years now. Making energy from our waste is the responsible direction forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring on Nuclear power and the jobs and cash it will bring for Australia and its Geologist! Its clean and beautiful, WoOt, Invest some shares in Uranium now, it will be worth it lots in a decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't reconcile with the idea of fision and it's potential for causing a "China Syndrome" (Check out the Horizon doco on 3 mile island - truly blood chilling stuff - too much potential for human error - even now). I'd rather a power source that contains a matchbox full of nuclear material (fusion) rather than tons of the stuff (fision) potentially seeping into groundwater or being dispersed to the winds. The biggest problem is the millions of tons of radioactive poop that we are left to deal with.

Sure fision works now with technologies that are relatively inexpensive, but when uranium runs out we're humped. Therefore:

If it has to be nuclear it has to be fusion all the way.

Fusion uses far less matter in operation, we can obtain fuel for fusion reactors from Earthly sources to start with (Deuterium etc) and go exploring our solar system for sources of more exotic fuels (3He etc). Ultimately I would prefer we didn't "rack" the solar sytem for resources, but if it becomes our only option for not polluting the crap out of our biosphere I guess it will have to be done. Hopefully we'd start with boring, annoying stuff like asteroids before buggering up the other planets.

Fusion will eventually come to fruition, Tokmaks such as ITER are likely to "break even" and the generation of devices after that (DEMO) will be 'epic win' for humanity.

Cold fusion (although occasionally ridiculed and dismissed) always shows promise and in theory is possible - IMO Fusors and Polywells are a step in the right direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell Some scientists believe fusion happens on quantum scales inside collapsing water bubbles so the answer might not involve large scale machinery or indeed manipulations of matter in ways that we have even conceived of yet. (yes I know the bubble fusion theory is on shaky ground - but kudos for people looking for fusion in unexpected places).

I hope we figure something out that is even better than fision or fusion before we shit in our nest too much. We have one whopping big magnetic field, solar winds and radiation, Geothermal energy, terrestrial wind and hydroelectricity to play with and I can't see any reason why a combination of these technologies couldn't take care of our energy needs if a dedicated effort was made. Geothermal energy - why don't we use this more - it's there, it's constant, reliable, good for the next couple of billion years - why don't we exploit that to our advantage? It is done to some capacity in a few countries but there is a power source sitting right beneath our feet, waiting for us to tap into it.

Sadly I think the powers that be (and humanity) profit too much from oil to seriously consider the alternatives that are right under our noses. The next 30-40 years will be very interesting.

Of course I could be 100% wrong and fusion might amount to nothing but it is worthwhile pursuing the option as vigorously as possible while we are still able to.

Edited by Stitches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geothermal energy - why don't we use this more - it's there, it's constant, reliable, good for the next couple of billion years - why don't we exploit that to our advantage? It is done to some capacity in a few countries but there is a power source sitting right beneath our feet, waiting for us to tap into it.

You'll definatley see more of this in the future, Western Australia has some world class Dry rock geothermal areas that are really really juicy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah geothermal seems the way to go, they use it a fair bit over in New Zealand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all these claims of failsafe nuclear power technology I found today's headline rather interesting:

"Japanese nuclear agency informs the industry minister that the "failsafe" cooling system at Fukushima no. 2 has failed."

A small mount of radioactive steam had to be released. Now, while I fully realise that the amount released THIS TIME poses little health risk, point is that the systems we are promised to be infallible are simply not and until such systems are in place I do not trust nuclear power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here here.

First sensible post i've read in this thread.

Nuclear power has the potential for disaster.

I'd rather live in a world with no electricity whatsoever than use power created by mining uranium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×