A future for nuclear power In NSW/Australia? (2 Viewers)

[Genesys]

If you've seen the effects of Chernobyl (search: Chernobyl childrens project)....you really won't wont nucleur power in Australia!

 

[withoutaface]

If you've seen the effects of Chernobyl (search: Chernobyl childrens project)....you really won't wont nucleur power in Australia!

No, you just won't want retard Russkies in charge of it.

 

[jm1234567890]

why cant we keep sellin off our large uranium stores.

simple fact of economics - exports strengthen the economy

uranium (the basis for nuclear power) may be exported

hot dry rock (the basis for geothermal, probably the best alternate) can not be exported.

so why not use uranium to strengthen our economy and geothermal as an environmentally friendly and sustainable method of producing electricity?

the other thing is everyone here is forgetting where we get uranium from. that is already highly controversial. we probably shouldnt be mining it at all.

we should use the uranium to power a stronger industry.

then again, I admit I don't know much about economics. My opinion is just from opinions of others which I have read in the past.

 

[slip]

nuclear power generation could be a very efficient industry. theoretically this is economically great. however as it is more efficient not that as many jobs will be required as in coal power generation, and nuclear would effectively be replacing coal power generation. this will mean i significant number of jobs losses.

so basically you can have an industry which is economically more efficient then coal + job losses

or

the benefits of increased exports and an industry which is just as, if not more effective, then nuclear power in geothermal power generation.

 

[jumb]

No, you just won't want retard Russkies in charge of it.

Yep, radiation technology and information is a lot better these days. There would be little risk if a Nuclear power plant was built in Australia.

 

[Slidey]

We don't need it, though. See my sig.

 

[jm1234567890]

We don't need it, though. See my sig.

i'm still betting on fusion powerplants within next 100 years.

although, that technology will be important for hydrogen fuel cell cars.

 

[zenger69]

Renewable resources aren't very viable
-wind - ugly and inefficient. People are already complaining about it.
-hydro - sediment build up occurrs over time in the dam, therefore it has a limited life. Not so renewable.
-solar power - expensive and inefficient,
-geothermal - needs lots of research and exploration in Australia.

All of them together would not be able to sustainably fulfill our electricity demand. And with all them -wind, solar power and hydro all your doing transferring Air Pollution --> Visual Pollution and Ecosystem Damage.
Sometimes these "Green Energy" has greater Ecological footprint than Coal or Gas. As Green energy is inefficient and therefore needs greater area inorder to replace one coal station.

Essentially it's the same.

Nuclear is the only solution:
-it's able to fulfil demand
-technology and safety has improved since Chernobyl (plus it was craziness that caused Chernobyl).
-nuclear waste is re-treated to be reused, therefore less waste compared to coal.
-the shield (dome) that protects the core can have terrorists attempt to fly into it and it will not break.

Why are people oppossing Nuclear I don't understand???

 

[slip]

ok all technologies take time and money to develope. as they develope they become cheaper. nuclear is only now cheap and safe enough because other nations spent years paying for that research.

if the only negative you can say about geothermal is the need for research then it shows what a good solution it is. plus find suitable geothermal sites is far far more succesful then find coal seems and oil fields (and we continue to search for these). it is very easy to predict where there are the right conditions for geothermal, and there are vast areas of land suitable in australia.

if geothermal has the ability to be a slightly more benefitial method of energy production, which i believe has already been proved in the thread (if not the fact that geothermal is infact the best technology) we should take a little bit of time and money into developing it into a viable alternative.

the cost of solar energy production is being reduced, just last night chanel 10 aired a news report about ground breaking 'new' sliver cells which reduce the amount of silicon(the most expensive part of the whole energy production process) and hence reduce the cost.

solar is very expensive initially, but after that has minimal running cost, and this research has potential made solar power econmically viable.

we should not just except the current technology, we should always be looking at ways of improving technology. everything we use today was researched and developed, and if we wish to continue to improve as a spieces we should be investing in research and developement for things like power production, cures for illnesses etc.

 

[slip]

im not opposing nuclear, im saying geothermal is better.

-one site can supply 75% of nsw's demand (it can fulfill demand)
-it is economically viable, production costs lower than that for coal
-it is enviromentally friendly, no emissions at all.
-wouldnt even be a terrorist target because there are no chemicals used, thus nothing terrorists could use or blow up.
-technology is already developed, it is just being used in an innovative fashion, thus it is highly reliable
-it allows uranium to be exported, and will provided more jobs then nuclear, thus its a double boost for the economy.

why do people oppose geothermal???

 

[Xayma]

Renewable resources aren't very viable
-wind - ugly and inefficient. People are already complaining about it.
-hydro - sediment build up occurrs over time in the dam, therefore it has a limited life. Not so renewable.
-solar power - expensive and inefficient,
-geothermal - needs lots of research and exploration in Australia.

All of them together would not be able to sustainably fulfill our electricity demand. And with all them -wind, solar power and hydro all your doing transferring Air Pollution --> Visual Pollution and Ecosystem Damage.
Sometimes these "Green Energy" has greater Ecological footprint than Coal or Gas. As Green energy is inefficient and therefore needs greater area inorder to replace one coal station.

Essentially it's the same.

Nuclear is the only solution:
-it's able to fulfil demand
-technology and safety has improved since Chernobyl (plus it was craziness that caused Chernobyl).
-nuclear waste is re-treated to be reused, therefore less waste compared to coal.
-the shield (dome) that protects the core can have terrorists attempt to fly into it and it will not break.

Why are people oppossing Nuclear I don't understand???

Also:
Wind Alters temperatures underneath wind and results in a reduction of bird life around it (can't be bothered getting the source but search the newscientist site if needed)

Hydro Rotting vegetation due to variations in dam levels and at the beginning leads to large greenhouse emissions. Destruction of natural ecosystems.

 

[jm1234567890]

-nuclear waste is re-treated to be reused, therefore less waste compared to coal.

You can't acctually do that very efficiently. It is eaiser to dump it and get more

 

[RingerINC]

You can't acctually do that very efficiently. It is eaiser to dump it and get more

or you could put nuclear waste on the tips of bullets... kill two birds with one stone...

 

[Generator]

MPs to examine nuclear power.

A committee of federal MPs is set to examine the controversial issue of whether Australia should introduce nuclear power.

Two weeks after Prime Minister John Howard expressed support for a national debate on nuclear power generation, The Age has learned that the issue will be canvassed by MPs when Parliament resumes in August.

The pros and cons of nuclear energy will be considered as part of a broader inquiry into Australia's uranium reserves - even though nuclear power was deliberately left out of the inquiry's terms of reference.

Five of the 10 MPs who will be conducting the inquiry - three Liberal, one Labor and one independent - have told The Age it is inevitable the inquiry will examine nuclear power, both as a possible way of generating electricity in Australia and as an energy solution overseas.

 

[Enlightened_One]

nuclear technology has gone a long way since the death traps in the 1970s, the latest nuclear power plants are nowdays very safe

If it is so safe I hope Carr builds it in Sydney, right across the road. Somehow I think that isn't going to happen though. It's going to be shoved somewere where the locals don't want it and they'll have to watch as their land prices plummet, and most of them will probably move just to be safe and thus have their lives ruined. Maybe all the nuclear supporters could move into one town and we could build it there but I reckon they're probably the biggest bunch of NIMBYs.

And what ever happened to the report that solar panels in the outback could sufficiently power the whole world. Surely then we can at least power Australia.

 

[hfis]

Also:
Wind Alters temperatures underneath wind and results in a reduction of bird life around it (can't be bothered getting the source but search the newscientist site if needed)

Hydro Rotting vegetation due to variations in dam levels and at the beginning leads to large greenhouse emissions. Destruction of natural ecosystems.

Solar: It takes more power to produce a solar panel than that panel will ever produce in its life. Yep, a fucking wonderful idea right there.

All you fucking hippies need to shut the hell up and learn to love the reactor.

 

[Xayma]

Solar: It takes more power to produce a solar panel than that panel will ever produce in its life. Yep, a fucking wonderful idea right there.

All you fucking hippies need to shut the hell up and learn to love the reactor.

Umm not true.

That was only true in the early days. Now being more efficient and longer lasting they do give back more energy.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Solar: It takes more power to produce a solar panel than that panel will ever produce in its life. Yep, a fucking wonderful idea right there.

All you fucking hippies need to shut the hell up and learn to love the reactor.

Well then I hope they build the damn thing in your backyard.

 

[hfis]

Umm not true.

That was only true in the early days. Now being more efficient and longer lasting they do give back more energy.

I'm sorry. Words really cannot describe how little I care about the facts.

My hippy comment still stands.

 

[hfis]

Well then I hope they build the damn thing in your backyard.

So do I, because then we'd have a nuclear reactor in New South Wales, and I'll be able to laugh at you.