Exposé Courageously Demystifies Nuclear Science!

[Gozu]

Wasn't it The Spectator that coined the term "young fogey"?

I'm not worried about what senior people in the green movement think about nuclear power. Tim Flannery is almost a punchline these days and I've never had much time for Green Peace. I agree it is 'cleaner' than coal but IMO it's far too risky to be seriously considered and still isn't environmentally friendly and while those things are never relevant by the decision makers and the sub-human big polluters and their lobbyists the fact is it doesn't stack up economically.

[Psyber]

I'm not sure whether The Speccie started the "young fogey" idea. My wife subscribed, and I only read it occasionally.
The subscription has lapsed but I read it on line from time to time as they still send the link to the old joint email address.

Nuclear accident risks are much reduced these days.
Containment methods have come a long way, and the major risk of cracking them up was meltdown.
The American "graphite golf ball" design in post-Chernobyl reactors reduced the risk substantially.
A Thorium reactor can't melt down - you have to feed it the occasional pep up pellet of a small dose of Uranium or Plutonium.
If you don't feed it occasionally it dies, just like a goldfish.

The carcinogens in diesel fumes are the really big worry from my point of view.
Everyone has worried about the lead in petrol and encouraged people to swap to diesel.
Bio-diesel has that problem too - and all diesel vehicles also put out carbon fines that can penetrate into your cells.
Nuclear technology may enable us to run transport on hydrogen or electricity affordably instead.

[therisingblues]

I agree it is 'cleaner' than coal but IMO it's far too risky to be seriously considered and still isn't environmentally friendly and while those things are never relevant by the decision makers and the sub-human big polluters and their lobbyists the fact is it doesn't stack up economically.

I'll need to go back and check the book to make sure of this at some stage, but I believe there maybe more chance of a hydro-electric dam bursting than of a nuclear reactor melting down.
Then, in the event that a reactor did melt down and you lived within the danger area, the chances are highly favourable that you'd get out okay. However, if you lived in the danger area where a dam might burst. You'd be ******!

[therisingblues]

Another bonus about nuclear power, is that it is a very real alternative to energy sources we are using right now.
Solar can supplement somethings, as can wind, hydro and other reusable options, but the technology and infrastructure just doesn't exist now to convert those options into something that can answer all our energy needs. And with the amount of carbon getting pumped into the air and the affect it is having on this planet, we need something right now to get off this fossil fuel diet.
Nuclear fits the bill. We have the technology already, we just need to build the reactors, and quick!

[mypaddock]

But have they figured out a way to safely dispose of the spent radioactive fuel as yet?

[Psyber]

But have they figured out a way to safely dispose of the spent radioactive fuel as yet?

Read the Thorium references.
The waste is less and its half-life is much lower than the by-products of older technology.
There is also less incoming fuel and less outgoing waste to be carted around by the carcinogen emitting Diesel trucks...

[Footy Chick]

I'm not sure whether The Speccie started the "young fogey" idea. My wife subscribed, and I only read it occasionally.
The subscription has lapsed but I read it on line from time to time as they still send the link to the old joint email address.

Nuclear accident risks are much reduced these days.
Containment methods have come a long way, and the major risk of cracking them up was meltdown.
The American "graphite golf ball" design in post-Chernobyl reactors reduced the risk substantially.
A Thorium reactor can't melt down - you have to feed it the occasional pep up pellet of a small dose of Uranium or Plutonium.
If you don't feed it occasionally it dies, just like a goldfish.

The carcinogens in diesel fumes are the really big worry from my point of view.
Everyone has worried about the lead in petrol and encouraged people to swap to diesel.
Bio-diesel has that problem too - and all diesel vehicles also put out carbon fines that can penetrate into your cells.
Nuclear technology may enable us to run transport on hydrogen or electricity affordably instead.

[Booney]

[Psyber]

The plant in Springfield is definitely last century's technology - as is the owner.

[Gozu]

Another bonus about nuclear power, is that it is a very real alternative to energy sources we are using right now.
Solar can supplement somethings, as can wind, hydro and other reusable options, but the technology and infrastructure just doesn't exist now to convert those options into something that can answer all our energy needs. And with the amount of carbon getting pumped into the air and the affect it is having on this planet, we need something right now to get off this fossil fuel diet.
Nuclear fits the bill. We have the technology already, we just need to build the reactors, and quick!

Solar etc can exist if they want them too and from what I've read nuclear power is not a real alternative now or in the immediate future. Who's going to pay to build these nuclear reactors?

[dedja]

Maybe we are all looking in the wrong place ... assuming a centralised power model as has been the way for 100 odd years.

But if we started to adopt a decentralised model to generate power at the point where it is used .... mmmm, that would change things a tad.

[Interceptor]

Maybe we are all looking in the wrong place ... assuming a centralised power model as has been the way for 100 odd years.

But if we started to adopt a decentralised model to generate power at the point where it is used .... mmmm, that would change things a tad.

Yeah solar panels on the roof is the obvious one.
Would need a pretty hefty installation to power modern households though...

A while ago I remember reading about fuel cell systems for the home as well.
They would run from the gas mains and suit places where the climate is inadequate for solar.

[dedja]

Yeah you're right, the technology isn't quite there yet but it's a bit like the water argument ... if we recycled water at our homes we wouldn't need (or waste) so much from the mains.

Unlikely that in the short-mid term that households could be self sufficient on power but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at it.

[Psyber]

Another bonus about nuclear power, is that it is a very real alternative to energy sources we are using right now.
Solar can supplement somethings, as can wind, hydro and other reusable options, but the technology and infrastructure just doesn't exist now to convert those options into something that can answer all our energy needs. And with the amount of carbon getting pumped into the air and the affect it is having on this planet, we need something right now to get off this fossil fuel diet.
Nuclear fits the bill. We have the technology already, we just need to build the reactors, and quick!

Solar etc can exist if they want them too and from what I've read nuclear power is not a real alternative now or in the immediate future. Who's going to pay to build these nuclear reactors?

As Jerry Pournelle has pointed out in several books and articles, solar energy is only going to work efficiently if the collectors are outside the atmosphere, and outside the gravity field where they can be huge without being massive. Previous to Ron Reagan getting the US presidency [conjecturally as front man for the John Birch Society] there was a joint project going on between Russia and the US to put huge solar stations in orbit - they were already training the joint teams who were to staff them. The main problem remaining was that the energy then had to be beamed back by microwave lasers, which were themselves potential weapons - hence the joint staffing. The collector dishes were intended to be about 28Km in diameter.

On the planetary surface, solar power, like wind and geothermal power, suffers from inefficiency. It is not only expensive for what you get out of it, but is prone to fluctuations with conditions and struggles to deliver, consistently, the amounts of power our society uses. That's why despite the 50 year ban on the use of nuclear power in many places those sources of energy have not succeeded in making significant inroads into the market.

The "woolly hat brigade" have, of course, argued that we should cut or power use so they are sufficient, but most of us are not prepared to give up our computers, mobile phones, mp3 players, and cars, and sit around reading by candle light wrapped in several blankets to make that work...

With the prefabrication techniques now available nuclear power plants will get cheaper.
With meltdown proof technology they no longer require the massive and expensive concrete bunkers, and the shielding they do need no longer cracks up and needs to be replaced as often.

Read the technology references available on the web.
If you only read the material from sources that already support your view agree with you you don't get the opportunity to review your old conclusions, but just reinforce them

[therisingblues]

Another bonus about nuclear power, is that it is a very real alternative to energy sources we are using right now.
Solar can supplement somethings, as can wind, hydro and other reusable options, but the technology and infrastructure just doesn't exist now to convert those options into something that can answer all our energy needs. And with the amount of carbon getting pumped into the air and the affect it is having on this planet, we need something right now to get off this fossil fuel diet.
Nuclear fits the bill. We have the technology already, we just need to build the reactors, and quick!

Solar etc can exist if they want them too and from what I've read nuclear power is not a real alternative now or in the immediate future. Who's going to pay to build these nuclear reactors?

As Jerry Pournelle has pointed out in several books and articles, solar energy is only going to work efficiently if the collectors are outside the atmosphere, and outside the gravity field where they can be huge without being massive. Previous to Ron Reagan getting the US presidency [conjecturally as front man for the John Birch Society] there was a joint project going on between Russia and the US to put huge solar stations in orbit - they were already training the joint teams who were to staff them. The main problem remaining was that the energy then had to be beamed back by microwave lasers, which were themselves potential weapons - hence the joint staffing. The collector dishes were intended to be about 28Km in diameter.

On the planetary surface, solar power, like wind and geothermal power, suffers from inefficiency. It is not only expensive for what you get out of it, but is prone to fluctuations with conditions and struggles to deliver, consistently, the amounts of power our society uses. That's why despite the 50 year ban on the use of nuclear power in many places those sources of energy have not succeeded in making significant inroads into the market.

The "woolly hat brigade" have, of course, argued that we should cut or power use so they are sufficient, but most of us are not prepared to give up our computers, mobile phones, mp3 players, and cars, and sit around reading by candle light wrapped in several blankets to make that work...

With the prefabrication techniques now available nuclear power plants will get cheaper.
With meltdown proof technology they no longer require the massive and expensive concrete bunkers, and the shielding they do need no longer cracks up and needs to be replaced as often.

Read the technology references available on the web.
If you only read the material from sources that already support your view agree with you you don't get the opportunity to review your old conclusions, but just reinforce them

Thanks Psyber.
Apart from the above, my view of solar is it can be viable but there are too many "ifs" attached to it at the moment. From what I gather, (and I am no means an expert but I like to read all the same), is that nuceal power is already here and viable. North Korea was able to build a couple of nuclear reactors on UN aid alone. I dread to think of what those reactors will end up being used for but we are talking about the price here.
To get the same amount of energy out of solar, you would probably have to go into the space programme as described by Psyber above. On that note, I read in a science journal that the idea of great solar dishes in space beaming energy back to Earth is again being discussed. Without the atmospheric interference the energy harvest is much higher.
Personally I would love to see solar developed to a point where it is our main energy source but that is a long way off still. I am very heartened to see the number of roofs in Japan with solar panels on them. I guess about 1 in 20 houses have them around my area. Some housing companies are making solar panels a standard on all new homes so it is gaining in popularity here.
I don't know what is happening in Australia, I don't get down there much these days, but Oz should be at least keeping pace with or going faster than Japan on this. Japan has so many days of rain and heavy cloud cover that Australia seems like a solar paradise in comparison IMO.

[dedja]

Psyber, where are you???

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 82,00.html

[Dogwatcher]

Struth, I didn't realise this thread would have strong legs.

[Psyber]

Psyber, where are you???
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 82,00.html

Helping count the votes of course!

Poll Results: Should Australia have nuclear power?
Yes 70% (1638 votes)
No 29% (695 votes)

[Gozu]

Just for the folks at home, the Liberal Party have admitted to rigging the polls & comments on The Advertiser's site recently and given how political an issue nuclear power is and the connections of the nuclear power industry and their lobbyists with the previous Howard Government those poll numbers may be considered more than a little biased.

Just sayin

[dedja]

Just for the folks at home, the Liberal Party have admitted to rigging the polls & comments on The Advertiser's site recently and given how political an issue nuclear power is and the connections of the nuclear power industry and their lobbyists with the previous Howard Government those poll numbers may be considered more than a little biased.

Just sayin

C'mon Gozu, I've got to admit I like your tenacity, but you know that both sides are capable of trying to manipulate the media and public opinion.

Problem is, I'm not sure if you're serious or taking the piss sometimes.