The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Nuclear power: time for a reasoned debate > Comments

Nuclear power: time for a reasoned debate : Comments

By Dennis Jensen, published 28/6/2005

Dennis Jensen argues the time is right for revisting the debate on nuclear energy for Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. All
The first step in having a reasoned debate is to establish the context. I don't think the Australian people will be unduely concerned about the death rate inherent in coal. After all, no one is forced to be a coal miner, so presumably the people do it because they're willing to take the risk.

So the very first question is whether Australia can continue to depend on coal for its power. People have no reason to look at the merits of other power generation schemes until they are convinced that continuation and expansion of coal fired generation is not an option.

I don't believe that arguments about the scale of other approaches will do much good either. We could build 22,500 wind generators if we had to, and we could cover 2500 square kilometres of land with a solar generator. Australia isn't exactly short of space.

Not that either of these is a complete solution - there would need to be short term storage and backup arrangements to match supply to demand - which adds to the cost.

Cost is where the true debate lies. It's what the public will pay attention to. So, the required steps are

a) Convince the public that they cannot continue to use coal.
b) Show them how much it costs to avoid nuclear power.

Then if the public still wants non-nuclear generation, it's their choice.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 11:35:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dennis i'm all for a debate including nuclear but can we get away from this default all or nothing position and also consider a combo model?

Stabilising Carbon Emmissions

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/stories/m1075783.ram
-a combination approach to energy production, admitting, no renewables alone won’t do it, so we should look at coal with carbon sequestration, energy efficiency, (not to forget recycling of our waste resources), renewables, nuclear, and gas.

Also if we are to look at the nuclear we do a cost benefit analysis including subsidies, security, waste management and decommissioning.
Posted by Neohuman, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 12:16:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree more data For example if all houses in Australia were almost independent of power supply lines how much of our energy needs are met? If a mix and match, some tidal some wind some photo voltaic all combined with architecture to minimise energy use how much of our needs is satisfied? What is our need/ Do we all have every imaginable power device including cars?
How much is nuclear subsidised? What would the cost, for cost is what seems to concern us, if one or more exploded or imploded? How much land would go out of producton? What is the line loss if nuclear stations wer placed in terra nullis, the aboriginal territories and how more expensive is this campared with local siting (and danger)?
etc.
Posted by untutored mind, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 12:29:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that we need to look at an entire energy portfolio, where all methods of power generation are considered. You can see further details of what I have said both in parliament and in the media by looking up Hansard at www.aph.gov.au.

On the issue of explosions-there are now Generation 4 nuclear reactors (which are the ones we should examine, such as pebble bed nuclear reactors) which are designed in a way such that meltdown is impossible. The problem with the PWRs and so on in use is that they are glorified ship propulsion plants. Gen 4 are designed with electricity generation in mind.

The simple fact is, the only genuine options at present in terms of baseload power supply are nuclear or fossil fuels. The so-called renewables have promised much, and delivered little.

With cost, it is important to note that nuclear power is the only electricity generation method where the cost of decommissioning is built into the cost of electricity. The futility of other methods not doing so can be seen in abandoned power plants, such as in Kwinana and East Perth in my own neck of the woods.

In my view, the choice of power generation methods, based on economic, environmental and future resource cost projections should be left in the hands of those most expert-the power utilities. If they deem nuclear unsuitable for their purposes, so be it. However, if they are being artificially constrained by legislation, then I think that this needs to change.

Of course, government oversight is essential.

Dennis
Posted by Pollie, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 1:01:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear Hear. We need clear debate based on the evidence.

Renewables promise much, and have so far delivered little, like nuclear energy. In 2002 nuclear energy supplied 2% of the world’s total energy production, based primarily in nuclear armed states.

But with the onset of climate change, the scarcity of oil and the growing demand for energy, we need to think carefully about future investment.

World electricity demand is expected to double by 2030 and the electricity sector is expected to invest US$9.8 Trillion to meet this demand, 60 per cent of that outside the OECD. Where this money is spent will directly affect the lives of billions of people.

So I take exception to the assertion that the power utilities are the most expert body to determine our energy future. Is it their business to take responsibility for the future of Australians, and indeed the needs of those in the poorest countries, or should they be responsible to their shareholders?

I have little doubt that a parent company with nuclear operations who part owns an Australian generator or utility would view nuclear power suitable for their purposes. But I don’t say “so be it”, I say ‘let's have the evidence’, I say ‘is this in the interests of Australians?’

Victoria’s baseload demand is about 4000 MWe. By my calculations, it would take 800 5MW turbines (such as those being built off shore in Europe) to deliver this power. Sure the wind doesn’t blow all the time in the one place. So let’s say we had 1600 of them dotted in small farms along Victoria’s coast (that’d be 50km apart) they’d easily meet baseload demand, doubling it at times.

But what of the cost? Well, based on current projects of comparable scale to Victoria's demand, nuclear stations would be more expensive.

All this though has to be viewed in the light of the fact that we waste perhaps up to half of the power we use today anyway.
Posted by martin callinan, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 2:55:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Time for a reasoned debate."
Yes. Hopefully about power in general - society's wants and needs, versus environmental capacity to supply.
How far can humanity go in providing power for all of its present and projected numbers?
Will there be aparthied in such provision? Do we recognise the rights of all peoples throughout the world to access a standard of living to which we of the "west" have become accustomed, and are reluctant to relinquish?
These western standards are underpinned by cheap energy. And the current economic paradigm decrees continuing growth, preferably at 4 per cent (doubling in less than two decades). Unless there is fundamental change in economic thought (and none in sight) this growth will be in parallel with increased energy use.
We of the "more developed" countries number about 1 billion. Do we have any fundamental right to discourage those 5 billion in the "less developed" countries from aspirations to our standard of affluence by denying them equal access to energy?
Yes, an energy crisis is approaching. Even with continuing imbalance favouring just the billion. Probably, it will manifest itself, alarmingly, within a decade. Yes, renewables will be incapable of deflecting it sufficiently. But, saying that nuclear is capable of doing the task is to continue the disinformation which has too often been a characteristic of that industry for the past half century.
If nuclear were to take over from coal and oil, within about a decade of the required number of nuclear power stations coming on stream, the available rich ores of uranium would be depleted. From then on, the energy needed to mine and extract uranium would be greater than the energy obtained from it.
What else from the pro-uranium lobby is tripe? plenty.
Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 3:04:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy