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

[withoutaface]

nuclear power, comes with many problems mainly waste disposal. For that reason it is not viable.

As opposed to fossil fuels which leak tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere?

 

[withoutaface]

None that produce enough power at the moment. Nuclear should be a fill in solution while solar systems and/or cold fusion are developed to a usable state.

 

[HotShot]

As opposed to fossil fuels which leak tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere?

CO2 has been released into the atmosphere for quite some time. And there methods that could be introduced to reduce it (or the levels are already too high and there is no point in stoppin?)

solar energy is expensive, nuclear is really potentially the same as coal. only alternative i can see wind - use far too much space and reliable on only weather conditions.

so coal is still the best.

 

[withoutaface]

The annual waste from a nuclear power plant can be fitted under a desk. It's really not that huge a problem.

EDIT: Wind involves land clearance, and is high inefficient.

 

[dilroy]

Most Australian's would probably be to stupid to realise the benefits of nuclear power and only talk about the disadvantages instead. Wee are crying over stupid things like workchoices and AWB. Most people would probably be like "but but teh Muslims!"

 

[Generator]

Most Australian's would probably be to stupid to realise the benefits of nuclear power and only talk about the disadvantages instead. Wee are crying over stupid things like workchoices and AWB. Most people would probably be like "but but teh Muslims!"

It's a shame to see that you consider such important issues to be 'stupid things'.

 

[Xayma]

The annual waste from a nuclear power plant can be fitted under a desk. It's really not that huge a problem.

EDIT: Wind involves land clearance, and is high inefficient.

You also forgot to mention the other lovely environmentally friendly impacts of wind turbines. Such as noise, heating of ground layers and forcing birds to change their migration patterns.

On the reactor itself I would be more worried about terrorists attacking a coal mine. It is the waste that is the problem to protect. But that itself can be minimised.

 

[dilroy]

Australia should just buy New Zealand and let them and their sheep go live in some hole like... Tasmania or something, then we can place all our nuclear power stations in New Zealand and connect a huge power line across the ocean to the shores of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Therefore, everyones happy because terrorists are so stupid they probably wouldn't be able to locate NZ on the world map.

/sarcarm ends here

 

[HotShot]

I'm friends with the Argentine building Lucas Heights' reactor in Argentina - and from what he's told me, a terrorist attack on the new reactor would do nothing. There is next to no danger in Nuclear power if it is well managed.

The LUcas Heights is reactor that is used to create radioactive elements, its purpose is not to create nuclear power. dont make me go into the chemistry of it.

 

[Mountain.Dew]

HotShot, eventually all the world's supply of coal will run out. what do we do then, if we are so coal dependent?

unfortunately, at this moment, the only viable alternative IS nuclear power. the other alternatives are too expensive, too inefficient, and is unable to sufficiently quench the ever growing energy thirst. by this time, we SHOULD have renewable resources everywhere, BUT not enough testing and research hasnt been implemented yet.

for now, nuclear power. we must accelerate research into more renewable resources (e.g. hydroelectricity, geo-thermal, solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen, perhaps fusion in future...) so that they are able to be cheap enough and efficient enough to sustain our energy demands for the future.

 

[HotShot]

HotShot, eventually all the world's supply of coal will run out. what do we do then, if we are so coal dependent?

unfortunately, at this moment, the only viable alternative IS nuclear power. the other alternatives are too expensive, too inefficient, and is unable to sufficiently quench the ever growing energy thirst. by this time, we SHOULD have renewable resources everywhere, BUT not enough testing and research hasnt been implemented yet.

for now, nuclear power. we must accelerate research into more renewable resources (e.g. hydroelectricity, geo-thermal, solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen, perhaps fusion in future...) so that they are able to be cheap enough and efficient enough to sustain our energy demands for the future.

we got plenty of time till it runs out, so in this time we can develop renewable sources of energy. why shift now to nuclear power now? when we still have coal available?

 

[Mountain.Dew]

we got plenty of time till it runs out, so in this time we can develop renewable sources of energy. why shift now to nuclear power now? when we still have coal available?

we are already having a global warming crisis. burning more coal to meet global energy demands will only dramatically add to the problem. I also like to mention that burning coal doesnt just release CO2. there are other nasty products, like SO2, NO2, and CO. SO2 and NO2 (Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dixoide) combined with steam creates acid rain. not good to buildings, rivers, natural habitats, etc...just take a look at the destruction of many beautiful German forests and lakes due to the burning of coal from Britain, and the corrosion of many European sandstone and stone temples and cathedrals. CO is carbon monoxide: a very poisonous gas to us, contributing to air pollution.

we all do respect, we do have the responsibility of good health and a good environment to consider.

nuclear power on the other hand, can be transported and disposed of safely in special chambers underground that wont affect above ground at all. let us just hope that nuclear power plants do not become the targets of terrorist attacks. better research into security and safety measures are needed.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

we got plenty of time till it runs out, so in this time we can develop renewable sources of energy. why shift now to nuclear power now? when we still have coal available?

Coal's expensive and dirty :/

 

[HotShot]

we are already having a global warming crisis. burning more coal to meet global energy demands will only dramatically add to the problem. I also like to mention that burning coal doesnt just release CO2. there are other nasty products, like SO2, NO2, and CO. SO2 and NO2 (Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dixoide) combined with steam creates acid rain. not good to buildings, rivers, natural habitats, etc...just take a look at the destruction of many beautiful German forests and lakes due to the burning of coal from Britain, and the corrosion of many European sandstone and stone temples and cathedrals. CO is carbon monoxide: a very poisonous gas to us, contributing to air pollution.

we all do respect, we do have the responsibility of good health and a good environment to consider.

nuclear power on the other hand, can be transported and disposed of safely in special chambers underground that wont affect above ground at all. let us just hope that nuclear power plants do not become the targets of terrorist attacks. better research into security and safety measures are needed.

true, but the levels of co2,so2 etc can be reduced elsewhere, like in cars, manufacturing etc. hybrid car are doing excellent job and in the future either there will be hybrid cars or cars that use solar or even ethanol.

but nuclear power plants, release radiation and already radiation are very high, and there has a been spike in cancer cases, as result of nuclear testing, explosion and poor waste management. Also you must realise nuclear power isnot renewable and will aslo lead to pollution. cooling is a problem, and destroys marine life in nearby waterways. Water is essential for nuclear power plant.

 

[Mountain.Dew]

true, but the levels of co2,so2 etc can be reduced elsewhere, like in cars, manufacturing etc. hybrid car are doing excellent job and in the future either there will be hybrid cars or cars that use solar or even ethanol.

but nuclear power plants, release radiation and already radiation are very high, and there has a been spike in cancer cases, as result of nuclear testing, explosion and poor waste management. Also you must realise nuclear power isnot renewable and will aslo lead to pollution. cooling is a problem, and destroys marine life in nearby waterways. Water is essential for nuclear power plant.

are you trying to say that the radiation caused by nuclear power plants cant be minimized, just as CO2, SO2, NO2...can?

And even though u can reduce the amount of these greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere, these greenhouse gases nonetheless are still being released! the atmosphere seriously cannot cope with any more of these gases. global warming is still at stake here. that problem we cannot go amiss.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

but nuclear power plants, release radiation and already radiation are very high, and there has a been spike in cancer cases, as result of nuclear testing, explosion and poor waste management.

Release radiation? What out of the top of them or are you talking about the waste?

Also you must realise nuclear power isnot renewable and will aslo lead to pollution.

Over a much, much longer period of time.

 

[HotShot]

Release radiation? What out of the top of them or are you talking about the waste?



Over a much, much longer period of time.

WASTE RADIATION,- EVENTUALLY WE WILL RUN OUT OF STORAGE SPACE (IN THE SENSE SAFE STORAGE SPACE).

RELEASING RADIOACTIVE WASTE INTO WATERWAYS AS RESULT COOLING..

 

[Not-That-Bright]

WASTE RADIATION,- EVENTUALLY WE WILL RUN OUT OF STORAGE SPACE (IN THE SENSE SAFE STORAGE SPACE).

RELEASING RADIOACTIVE WASTE INTO WATERWAYS AS RESULT COOLING..

:/
........................

 

[HotShot]

COAL is our most abundant fossil fuel. The United States has more coal than the rest of the world has oil. There is still enough coal underground in this country to provide energy for the next 200 to 300 years.

But coal is not a perfect fuel.

Trapped inside coal are traces of impurities like sulfur and nitrogen. When coal burns, these impurities are released into the air.

While floating in the air, these substances can combine with water vapor (for example, in clouds) and form droplets that fall to earth as weak forms of sulfuric and nitric acid – scientists call it "acid rain."

There are also tiny specks of minerals – including common dirt – mixed in coal. These tiny particles don't burn and make up the ash left behind in a coal combustor. Some of the tiny particles also get caught up in the swirling combustion gases and, along with water vapor, form the smoke that comes out of a coal plant's smokestack. Some of these particles are so small that 30 of them laid side-by-side would barely equal the width of a human hair!

Also, coal like all fossil fuels is formed out of carbon. All living things - even people - are made up of carbon. (Remember - coal started out as living plants.) But when coal burns, its carbon combines with oxygen in the air and forms carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas, but in the atmosphere, it is one of several gases that can trap the earth's heat. Many scientists believe this is causing the earth's temperature to rise, and this warming could be altering the earth's climate (read more about the "greenhouse effect").

Sounds like coal is a dirty fuel to burn. Many years ago, it was. But things have changed. Especially in the last 20 years, scientists have developed ways to capture the pollutants trapped in coal before the impurities can escape into the atmosphere. Today, we have technology that can filter out 99 percent of the tiny particles and remove more than 95 percent of the acid rain pollutants in coal.

We also have new technologies that cut back on the release of carbon dioxide by burning coal more efficiently.

Many of these technologies belong to a family of energy systems called "clean coal technologies." Since the mid-1980s, the U.S. Government has invested more than $2 billion in developing and testing these processes in power plants and factories around the country. Private companies and State governments have been part of this program. In fact, they have contributed more than $4 billion to these projects.

300 YEARS - PLENTY OF TIME.

 

[Generator]

Stateline - An Ill Wind

Nimbyism. Awesome.