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: no solution to climate change > Comments

Nuclear power: no solution to climate change : Comments

By Jim Green, published 6/12/2005

Jim Green argues the use of nuclear power is fraught with problems for little significant benefit.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
If Dr. Green would care to consult the web pages of the Uranium Information Centre Ltd., he will find ample data that refutes his thesis. His anti-nuclear rant covers about 2.5 sheets of A4 paper and ranges over such diverse topics as greenhouse gas emissions, availability of uranium, safety concerns in the Japanese industry, nuclear proliferation, the IAEA safeguard system, nuclear smuggling, terrorist targets, radioactive waste disposal and Mr. Bob Hawk.

Then Dr. Green turns his attention to the renewable energies. Hydroelectricity he tells us, with obvious relish produces 19% of the world’s electricity. Wind, solar and biomass get their Guernsey. Energy efficiency, reducing energy consumption strategies are praised. Finally we are referred to the Clean Energy Future Group for more of the same.

I look forward to further papers from Dr. Green provided he can discipline himself to a limit of one or two topics only. For instance could he tell us more about the 50-100,000 tons plutonium predicated by the IPCC. What proportion is, or will be of weapons grade plutonium standard?
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 2:08:06 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
Whilst the dangers of accidents and misuse of reactors are concerns, these are not fatal to the argument for them. Nor is the fact that their contribution to reducing Green House effects are modest. Nuclear power is on the agenda becuase we are running out of fossil fuel, and something has to be done.

What this article did was tell me - remind me - that nuclear energy is itself based on a non-renewable resource, and one that is, according to the author, in scarce supply. The fatal flaw to nuclear power, then, is that it is a terribly short term solution to a long term problem. Since we have another 4 or 5 billion years before the sun burns out, we do need energy for the long term, and playing around with dangerous 200 years solutions is, well, just absurd
Posted by David E James, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 2:18:25 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
The anti-nuclear argument is I beleive based on fear and muddled thinking. Yes nuclear power is dangerous but no more than many other things. Man kind goes forward by applying his discoveries to improve the world. By saying "Oh we cant have nuclear power, mankind will misuse it and is not morally fit to be trusted with it" Jim Green takes the part of Zesus who denies the use of fire to mankind.

There are now 3rd generation reactors that can be ordered "off the shelf". The benefits to Australia would include the ability to cheaply power an electrified rail grid, Pumping of water on a scale to irrigate dry inland areas, the pumping of treated effluent water from our cities to irrigate inland areas and desalination if we need it.

If we have a proper nation (and we should have or what are we doing wasting our time here)then we can further involve plutonium in the fuel cycle thus reducing the amount of that material.

Here's a vision of the future where Australia is so thoroghly greeened
that there is no need to chop down Tasmanias forests for chips and where that "bad old" C02 is taken up by the increase in biomass of the previously marginal areas.
Posted by Jellyback, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 2:31:01 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
Those supporters of nuclear power should immediately lobby their local member and demand that a nuclear power station and a nuclear waste dump be located in their suburb. After all the benefits are such we can just wear the risk. OK, who is going to be first to put their hand up?

While we could just dig up our uranium and send it overseas (although I don't support that), the reality is that the economic implications of the distribution of our relatively small population over a very large area means nuclear energy is never going to stack up as a viable power source for us. How many stations would we need across the country and where are they going to be located? Even if a decision was made today to commit to building a nuclear power station in Australia it would be 10 years at least before it came on stream. Any idea on what it would cost to build and how much would the cost of power generated be compared to alternative energy sources?
If the rest of the world were to commit to nuclear power as the answer for their future power needs it would require hundreds, if not thousands, of power stations to be built forcing up the cost of construction and the price of uranium. Just like oil, the quantity of uranium is finite and so within a few years we would be looking at running out of supplies and so would be back to square one.
Given the economics and the risks associated with nuclear energy we might as well start looking now at renewable energy and skip the nuclear option.
No, nuclear power for Australia is just a pipe dream so just get over it.
Posted by rossco, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 10:29:33 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
There is no "nuclear option", because the world is running out of economically-mined uranium and the secondary supplies of ex-weapons highly enriched uranium (HEU), re-worked mine tailings, inventories and a modicum of MOX are expected to be exhausted in ten years or so.

This is so much a crisis for the nuclear industry that it has anguished over it in the last three annual symposiums of the World Nuclear Association in London. Many nuclear stations will run out of fuel once the 40% of the world's supply from secondary sources declines.

Primary mining supplies provide only 60% of the demand and even this level of supply requires a constant location and opening of new mines as the production in the existing mines reaches its "Hubbert" peak and then declines.

There could be no better illustration of this dilemma than the proposals to expand Olympic Dam mine in South Australia by digging a hole 3km x 3km x 1km to extract copper, gold and uranium. BHP Billiton has initiated a feasibility study, but have already stated that without the copper, the grade of uranium ore at only 0.04% is insufficiently high to warrant a go-ahead without the revenue from the copper.

Uranium is mined for the energy it produces in a subsequent nuclear fuel cycle, but if the diesel and electricity used to excavate such an enormous hole and mill the lean ore exceeds that produced in the fuel cycle what is the point? The Olympic Dam expansion requires desalinated water supply and pipeline, a rail connection and there is a suggestion of an airport. The initial energy input is unlikely to provide a decent energy return, certainly not if world recession lowers the price of copper.

The proponents of the "nuclear option" should state where they imagine the world's uranium supply would come from, especially if Australia retained its uranium for its own fleet.
Posted by John Busby, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 3:32:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All the arguments of the anti-nuclear lobby have been thoroughly refuted before, yet they persist in their luddite thinking.
There is no problem with supplies of uranium. The nuclear industry has NOT anguished over it in the last three annual symposiums of the World Nuclear Association in London. It has been a subject of discussion, as one would expect, but the following has satisfactorily disposed of that particular concern:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/pdf/macdonald.pdf

The anti-nuclear lobby is against any solution to the energy crisis for ideological reasons unrelated to the actual problem. They want to see a collapse of the current economic system so that they can have a chance to implement their failed socialist ideas.
One would have thought that the failed communist experiment of the Soviet Union would have persuaded them that socialism and communism doesn't work. But no, they persist...
They can't seem to get away from their 1970's student activist way of thinking.
For an exposé on who these people really are, have a look at the following article written by Patrick Moore:
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues.cfm?msid=34
Posted by Froggie, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 7:36:14 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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