This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Uranium unsafe

Jump to new
Julia,

I see it with people all the time.

Some think "well if I vote liberal and I live in the inner east, I'm wealthy, so I guess that makes me a supporter of old school carbon based fuels or nuclear". An automatic unconscious association.

Or... "well I'm young and I live in an 'alternative' city-fringe suburb, I don't work or wash my hair and I resist everything old school, so i guess that means I'm into alternative fuels".

People vote like this, spend money like this, conduct every aspect of their lives according to where they think they fit in the social order....instead of THINKING.

Laughable that they should be allowed to build reactor stations in the first place after past problems with transparency.

What is the thread about, and why did I get personal? Because people get rigidly attached to a view without even considering what is best for the population and the planet. Am i rigidly attached to solar thermal? No. I'd choose it in a second over nuclear, but the moment something better comes along, well I'm on that. No getting stuck.
 

I can hear your passion, and respect it, let's flesh out fact.

gg
 
I also apologize for being personal.

We've got people's lives to consider and I get angry when alternatives could have been fast tracked by governments who were too busy pandering to big business interests.
 
Gringotts Bank said:
I also apologize for being personal.

We've got people's lives to consider and I get angry when alternatives could have been fast tracked by governments who were too busy pandering to big business interests.
Click to expand...

I am in complete agreement with you. On this.

gg
 
Gringotts Bank said:
I also apologize for being personal.

We've got people's lives to consider and I get angry when alternatives could have been fast tracked by governments who were too busy pandering to big business interests.
Click to expand...
Passion is good when it's based on thoughtful consideration. I understand how you feel, though do rather disagree that the average person lacks the capacity to think for themselves. I believe most Australians are much smarter politically than we usually give them credit for.

I personally think there is way less pandering to big business than there is pandering to the bloody Greens with their total lack of comprehension of economic reality.
 
I'd prefer not to get worked up (passionate as you call it), but there we are. Must be a sore spot for me.

What about this for economic reality: instead of handing out billions of dollars so that everyone can buy a big screen tv, give it to the CSIRO and hound them every single day until they come up with something cheaper, using existing technologies. If a man can be put on the moon in the 1960's then advances can be made in technology to improve running/set up costs of alternative fuels. It should have been done 10 years ago. The hardware is all ready to go - it works and it's extremely efficient (solar thermal anyway). But we know what happens when you defy BHP and RIO with a profits tax.... out you go, just like Rudd.

Pollies are just pawns for big business. 'Twas ever thus.
 
Gringotts Bank said:
We've got people's lives to consider and I get angry when alternatives could have been fast tracked by governments who were too busy pandering to big business interests.
Click to expand...

True, but don't forget that all Australians have contributed to alternative energy companies. For example GDY wouldn't have survived the last ten years without government grants. 10 years and 100s of millions of trying to poor water down holes in order to make enough power for a couple of houses. To the average investor this hardly seems like a risk adverse investment.

I'd love to no end a clean world rid of fossil fuels.

I respect your ethics.

I still support the development of clean and safe nuclear energy. Once all the facts have been examined in Japan, engineers and builders of nuclear reactors are going to be better prepared. There will be positives gained.

Your original post was a statement that uranium is unsafe. Yes, uranium can be unsafe, but that doesn't mean we should stop developing a technology that continues to improve and meet the needs of a demanding electricity hungry world.

 
A modern (not 1970s) built Nuclear plant is far better than a dozen coal belching power plants any day. We'd all rather Solar/wind/tidal etc but this is 2011 not 2031. It's time my Green friends got real, educated themselves & backed the lesser of two evils.
 
I'm no expert on nuclear reactors, but my understanding is that nothing fundamental has changed in design or construction over the years that makes that would make a modern reactor completely earthquake proof.

From a financial perspective, you'd need to take a lot of the safety systems and design out of reactors for them to be viable economically. That is, they are way too expensive already, without trying to make them earthquake proof as well. No surprise then to find that new ones are being built primarily in countries where the people have no say in such matters, labour is cheap and so on.
 
Just thought id contribute with some trivia: 67 km² of solar panels could satisfy the whole of australias power needs.
 
jimmyizgod said:
Just thought id contribute with some trivia: 67 km² of solar panels could satisfy the whole of australias power needs.
Click to expand...

I cant comment on the truth of this statement, but would ask; what kind of accumulator / storage device is also needed for when the sun isn't shining?
 
pointr said:
I cant comment on the truth of this statement, but would ask; what kind of accumulator / storage device is also needed for when the sun isn't shining?
Click to expand...
The practical option, assuming we want something that actually works and is reasoanbly affordable, is pumped storage hydro. Contrary to the belief of many, yes we do have suitable locations to build them.
 

Seeing that your not attached to any view and are well versed on the alternatives perhaps you could answer a couple of questions for me?

Question 1: why is a LFT reactor inherently safer than a LW reactor?

Question 2: what is a LFTR ice plug and what is it supposed to do?

Question 3: Why is it near impossible for a successfully shut down LWR to go into a runaway meltdown?
 
jimmyizgod said:
Just thought id contribute with some trivia: 67 km² of solar panels could satisfy the whole of australias power needs.
Click to expand...

Can you provide some authoritative references for that statement?
 
Ausra has built a 175mw large scale plant.

Read about it here, but only if you want to. No pressure!

http://news.cnet.com/Solar-thermal-...uture/2100-11392_3-6206822.html?tag=mncol;txt

They don't mention it in this 2007 article but they have developed a way to store energy during the night using molten salts.

So it has 24 hr output and is getting very close to matching fossils fuels for efficiency.

http://mmadan.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/molten-salt-takes-solar-thermal-into-24x7-mode/

This is a good one ^^.
The idea of being able to power Australia this way seems quite feasible,
 
Gringotts Bank said:
Ask someone who knows about nuclear reactors. Or there's a website, called Google. You can find it here: www.Google.com
Click to expand...

Exactly...you haven't got a clue and yet feel the need to make statements like


Something better has come along and you have dismissed it without any understanding of it...simply because it involves a nuclear reaction, nothing wrong with having an opinion just nice to back it up with something.
 
Efficiency perhaps, but price? Low price is the ultimate in efficiency, from an economic perspective.

Besides, whats with people always saying 'power Australia'? The line of thinking behind this is completely off. Australia is not a machine, which just happened to be there, and needs to be powered by cranking its shaft. Australia is a collection of individuals, each working to better their lot in life. It is because this betterment incidentally involves electricity generation (electricity is currently the most efficient means of transporting and manipulating energy) which incidentally happens to be most efficiently achieved by burning coal, that we have more coal stations than other types of stations.

If solar was a more efficient way of supplying this betterment of life, it would be used. Think of it this way: if it costs a man 5000 days of labor to make a solar cell that will halve his future labor requirements, or 1000 days of labor to build a coal burner that will do the same - which will he choose? That is what price is.

Until they can spew out solar cells at low prices, Coal wins, Uranium wins.
 
Actually, it's not the cost of making them that is the killer. Rather, it is the insistence that x % annual return on investment be made.

If you look at it purely in terms of labour inputs then wind, hydro and brown coal are all pretty clear winners. But once you add in the requirement for a return on up-front investment then they end up unprofitable.

That's a fundamental change in the way the power industry does business now as opposed to in the past. Go back to the boom days of the SECV in Victoria and HEC in Tasmania and there is one rather glaring point to note. The target rate of return on invested capital was ZERO. The whole concept was that of break even over the life of the power schemes which, in the case of Tas, was a design life of 90 years (30 - 40 years for brown coal in Vic). Actually making a profit was never intended, and if it happened then charges were simply reduced (which actually did happen) to ensure that the profit was eliminated the following year.

Then the utilities were dragged kicking and screaming into the world of financialisation. The SECV no longer exists at all, whilst the HEC is a shadow of what it once was. Brown coal is uneconomic, and nobody's likely to build any big new hydro schemes anytime soon either.

Worth noting that the same thing happened overseas with nuclear power. Once the notion emerged that a profit was to be made on invested capital, that was pretty much the end of it for many utilities. As with brown coal and nuclear, it just doesn't stack up in such a financial environment.

It's the financial system that is stopping alternative energy, not the technologies per se. We can already generate electricity with less labour than is required for black coal or gas, but the financial system rewards a reduction in up front cost rather than a reduction in total labour inputs.
 
I know it's really hard to click a link, so I'll click it for you guys. Ooooh that was hard, you're right!

What?! What's this???!!

"solar thermal power plants can do so for around 13 cents per kilowatt hour, according to the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This is only marginally more expensive than the average U.S. price for coal-generated electricity in 2008 of 11 cents per kilowatt hour".

There's more on the links, but don't click them if you've made up your mind prematurely.

Meanwhile, back in Japan...

Oh that's right I don't know how a nuclear reactor works! Therefore I shouldn't say that leaking radiation is dangerous/ Uh huh.

Solar thermal is totally different to solar photovolaics but I'm pretty sure I've said that before also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How to totally xuck the worlds largest economy with a chainsaw
Replies
14
Views
2K
basilio
Robotax
Replies
2
Views
749
Craton
Saxo move to Totality
Replies
9
Views
824
rolly1
Gold coins: Which are the best Australian individual coins to buy for Grandchildren?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Garpal Gumnut
Fun with ChatGPT
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
SirRumpole
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...