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 > Say 'no' to nuclear - but not for the usual reasons > Comments

Say 'no' to nuclear - but not for the usual reasons : Comments

By Les Coleman, published 16/5/2007

Australia has a record of poor management of technologies and lacks the expertise to go nuclear.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Nuclear power actually has a good record except for one very poorly designed and operated power station in a totalitarian state. The actual amount of waste from nuclear power is very small because of the e+mc2 equation from Einstein and its storage problem is not so great. (It is not stored in steel tanks which need repainting - the anti-Nukes are great at exploiting the fears of an ill informed public).

One of the biggest problems in Australia is that the mines are so often in environmentally significant areas. This is a problem with many mines, and this we should address. Perhaps some areas simply must not be mined.

Australia's record at managing major technologies is very good - what about complex surgery performed every day in our hospitals?

Dr Les Coleman lectures in finance at the University of Melbourne. His principal research focus is on the nature and consequences of firm risks. He is pushing his own research. He is not an engineer!
Posted by logic, Saturday, 19 May 2007 10:53:05 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
rojo, if it were that easy, the Yucca Mountain complex would be done and dusted by now. Google it for details.

logic, I say again that for every tonne of UF6 produced, we have to keep 9 tonnes of dUF6. It IS stored in steel containers which need re-painting and careful inspection. The contact between dUF6 and the inner steel surface results in a skin of intermediate compound which slows corrosion. Contact between the outer surface and the atmosphere is another matter altogether. Why else do we have to paint the Sydney Habour bridge continuously?

Here is the US D of E webpage:

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/mgmtuses/storage/index.cfm

Pictures of the massive storage facilities:

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/mgmtuses/storage/where/index.cfm

Note that these cylinders are 12' x 4' dia, 5/16" thick steel. They each hold 14 tonnes of dUF6. They are stacked two deep.

A video makes it all clear (Realplayer):

http://web5.ead.anl.gov/video/duf6/fullduf6.ram

Why is this, arguably the worst of all the waste-streams, never mentioned? Because it makes a mockery of any "relaxed and comfortable" attitude towards nuclear power in Howard's Australia.

We have always made energy distribution "profitable" by dumping the spoil on the land, in the water and into the atmosphere. But nuclear spoil is something else again, and we won't get away with it this time.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Sunday, 20 May 2007 5:31:08 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
"Why else do we have to paint the Sydney Habour bridge continuously?"

Because it's 50m from the sea and takes 5 years to paint. thus it really only needs to be painted every 5 years( if you could paint it in one day).
By storing in a dry environment this repainting of containers may be unnecessary altogether.
Posted by rojo, Sunday, 20 May 2007 8:58:19 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 thought the dangers of accidents were amongst the usual reasons. However, here are a few others:
currently nuclear power contributes only a few percent of world energy. Any major expansion would lead to rapid exhaustion of economically accessible Uranium 235. Beyond that, breeder reactors could take over, but in half a century no-one has been able to get them to work.
the disposal of waste and decommissioning of out of use-by date power station will, if ever accomplished, probably require as much or more energy as the plant can produce during its lifetime
You might be prepared to cope with the accidents, but how about the bombs?
Lead time for new nuclear stations is around 15 years. There are other solutions available now. These include wind, waves, geothermal, photo-voltaic etc. Read Mark Diesendorf's Greenhouse Solutions with sustainable energy UNSW Press. And how about energy conservation?
Posted by Ned Ludd II, Monday, 21 May 2007 3:13:33 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
Ned,
"currently nuclear power contributes only a few percent of world energy. Any major expansion would lead to rapid exhaustion of economically accessible Uranium 235."

While overall energy production is low, nuclear produces 16% of the worlds electricty. France produces 70% of it's electricity by nuclear.
As fossil fuels decline nuclear will end up with a larger percentage of total energy production. As will renewables.

The price of Uranium ore has little effect on the cost of the electricity and as the price of ore increases previously uneconomic ore bodies start up. Exploration increases and more uranium is found.

On safety I think we dwell too much on the consequences of an accident, rather than the risk of one occuring.
Posted by rojo, Monday, 21 May 2007 9:16:26 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 would be careful about placing total faith in Mark Diesendorf. He gives the answer that many greenies would like to hear, and he has done a lot of useful work, bur he is not an engineer and has played no part in developing or building practical solutions.

The reality is always a lot harder than the ideal. Also beware of enthusiasts. Dr. Price, who is an engineering lecturer and has a working background in coal, nuclear and wave technologies supports nuclear power as part of the mix. Unfortunately those who have done it get less of an audience than those who have just read about it.

A lot more can and should be achieved with energy saving and solar panels on houses, but this is only part of the answer. Things like system stability, the need for power when it is dark, or the wind is not blowing are all practical matters to be considered, neglect them and the system simply does not work.

I doubt that the energy in building and removal of nuclear stations require more energy than that saved, who actually said that, and what was their professional background and work experience?
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 22 May 2007 6:40:54 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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