The politics of being banned

[Bluke]

You could hardly call it 'safer' than Geothermal, Wind or Solar. In fact I believe it to be inherently unsafe; Fukushima demonstrated that unequivocally in my mind.   

[Ziplock]

you can call considerably more reliable and having greater output though.

Japan's built on a fault line- nuclear reactors there were always going to be risky. Australia would have that issue however.

[hawk_88]

You could hardly call it 'safer' than Geothermal, Wind or Solar. In fact I believe it to be inherently unsafe; Fukushima demonstrated that unequivocally in my mind.

I don't have the stats at hand (they are on my Laptop which a friend has borrowed), however if you look at deaths per Watt produced, serious injuries per Watt produced and the effect on the average life span of those within living within a certain radius, it all stacks up very favourably, even against the "green" energy sources such as Geothermal, Wind, Solar and the various forms of Hyrdo.

What you have to consider is not just the product in its final state, but the process of building it and sourcing the materials and the issues, both in terms of safety and environmental impact. Environmentally, the two measures that are generally used to measure impact on the environment are impact per square kilometre and more recently, production of CO2. If you take into consideration the full construction and use of all forms of power consumption, Nuclear comes out on top.

Fukushima was a considerable media beat up so consistent and concrete facts are difficult to find. What is the case is that the design of the reactors was to allow for an earth quake of magnitude 8.2 and the earth quake that hit japan was 8.9. Interestingly, something that hasn't been widely reported, was in the thousands of documents leaked by wikileaks, many countries actually warned Japan that their nuclear reactors posed a safety risk. Either way though, they weren't designed to take the 8.9 quake and then to pile on top a massive tidal wave onto 40 year old reactors, they held up very well.

You might fairly point out that whatever human incompetence lead to this, the risk is there for massive disasters, natural or otherwise, to create these potential disasters, which is true, but if you look at what happened in Fukushima, which was really a worst case situation, the actual impact, both on health and the environment was and will be pretty minimal. The problem is we as a society see these single "big" events because they happen at once, but what we don't see is the gradual impact the other energy production forms have, which cumulatively is worst.


That being said, Nuclear isn't the ultimate energy source without any problems, however it is the best we have available to use now, so we should certainly should use it now. Other forms of energy production that are being developed at the moment will provide better options, but we shouldn't wait. There were three main viable alternatives being developed, when I last looked into this a few years ago. The first is another form of Nuclear power that involves a fusion reaction (the current technology is a fission reaction). The great aspect of this is that it takes heavy water (deuterium for the chemists) which is available in abundance in the sea and produces pure water as the output. Safer and much more efficient. The other two are solar options. The first is simply using existing solar panel in geosynchronous orbit above the atmosphere such that there is a much greater amount of energy that enters the panels. Not as outlandish as it sounds. The other, which will probably be more difficult, is improving solar technology. Currently the medium for turning the light from the sun into electricity is very inefficient, with the majority of the energy being turned into heat. The trick is to find the right medium that produces more electricity and less heat. Once that is done solar will become a much more viable option.

[Bluke]

What you have to consider is not just the product in its final state, but the process of building it and sourcing the materials and the issues, both in terms of safety and environmental impact. Environmentally, the two measures that are generally used to measure impact on the environment are impact per square kilometre and more recently, production of CO2. If you take into consideration the full construction and use of all forms of power consumption, Nuclear comes out on top.

I dispute that claim in its entirety. I’ve worked in the mining industry for some time now and you can’t tell me that the extraction process of removing Uranium (or Plutonium) from the ground, transporting it, refining it and then the construction of the plant is more carbon intensive than the manufacture and installation of wind turbines and solar panels. It’s just not possible.  Even the drilling process involved in geothermal is infinitely cleaner than the mining of uranium. Most uranium mining is very volume-intensive, and thus tends to be extracted via open-pit mines. Why do you think the mining industry is crying out for exemptions under the proposed ETS? Because it’s a carbon intensive industry.

Fukushima was a considerable media beat up so consistent and concrete facts are difficult to find. What is the case is that the design of the reactors was to allow for an earth quake of magnitude 8.2 and the earth quake that hit japan was 8.9. Interestingly, something that hasn't been widely reported, was in the thousands of documents leaked by wikileaks, many countries actually warned Japan that their nuclear reactors posed a safety risk. Either way though, they weren't designed to take the 8.9 quake and then to pile on top a massive tidal wave onto 40 year old reactors, they held up very well.

Japan is one of the most advanced industrialised nations in the world, if they can’t get it right â€" who can? The technology isn’t fool proof. Yes its base load capacity is incredible but the world’s supply of uranium will only last 50 years. What is the point of investing billions of dollars in constructing reactors for them to be decommissioned in 50 years. I’ll be clear and state that I’m not calling for the cessation of uranium mining in Australia. What I am saying that is that there are better methods which are well suited to a) advancing economic growth, b) our climate, c) reducing carbon emissions, and; d) promoting innovation and industry advancement. 

[elephants]

That was a lot of comments to read, many of which made very little sense to me as I don't use live chat.

[hawk_88]

I dispute that claim in its entirety. I’ve worked in the mining industry for some time now and you can’t tell me that the extraction process of removing Uranium (or Plutonium) from the ground, transporting it, refining it and then the construction of the plant is more carbon intensive than the manufacture and installation of wind turbines and solar panels. It’s just not possible.  Even the drilling process involved in geothermal is infinitely cleaner than the mining of uranium. Most uranium mining is very volume-intensive, and thus tends to be extracted via open-pit mines. Why do you think the mining industry is crying out for exemptions under the proposed ETS? Because it’s a carbon intensive industry.

What I am going off was a selection of stats from a report, I can't claim to be an expert on the processes involved in each of methods of energy production. The report it self was produced by the UN and was a collation of over 1000 reports, I would like to point you to it, but as I said before I don't have it with me at the moment.

My understanding is that it is an issue of yield. Given the construction and operation over x years, the amount of energy produced given y materials which produces z CO2.

Japan is one of the most advanced industrialised nations in the world, if they can’t get it right â€" who can? The technology isn’t fool proof. Yes its base load capacity is incredible but the world’s supply of uranium will only last 50 years. What is the point of investing billions of dollars in constructing reactors for them to be decommissioned in 50 years. I’ll be clear and state that I’m not calling for the cessation of uranium mining in Australia. What I am saying that is that there are better methods which are well suited to a) advancing economic growth, b) our climate, c) reducing carbon emissions, and; d) promoting innovation and industry advancement.

Any reactors built today would have 40 years in terms of technology over Japan's reactors. I think 50 years is certainly a significant period of time considering the issue.

I have to disagree with you on points b and c, because the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

Point a I am not sure, I know the cost is greater for wind, hydro and solar given the efficiency of those production methods but I am not sure of the economic impact of going with either. I know from Australia's perspective going Nuclear would be beneficial given our large uranium stores but again I am not an economist so I am not going to claim something I can't support.

Point d, I would think that going Nuclear would encourage investment in Fission based Nuclear power which would be a discovery of proportions on par with penicillin. However the same could be said of going solar given the long term potential of solar is fantastic, but in the short term is hugely impractical.

I would be all for a carbon tax in Australia if all of the funding was to go into government owned research into energy alternatives. However I feel this is a unlikely outcome.

[bowyanger]

lets raise this thread again

[Justin Bieber]

lets raise this thread again

lol

Everyone boo the guy who posted the thread. He swore a lot  :-\

[pyronerd]

just a whinger :-X

[bomberboy0618]

I got banned, and tbh, if I hadnt got banned, I wouldnt have found another awesome site. For this I thank m0nty.

[Justin Bieber]

I got banned a couple of times, but didn't whinge like this guy...

[bomberboy0618]

I got banned a couple of times, but didn't whinge like this guy...

Oh I meant from the forum, not the chat. Whoops.

[pyronerd]

I got banned, and tbh, if I hadnt got banned, I wouldnt have found another awesome site. For this I thank m0nty.

do you also thank cicj? :P

[bomberboy0618]

I got banned, and tbh, if I hadnt got banned, I wouldnt have found another awesome site. For this I thank m0nty.

do you also thank cicj? :P

I thought that was implied.

[CrowsFan]

What site did you find?