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 energy - a game changer? > Comments

Nuclear energy - a game changer? : Comments

By Phil Sawyer, published 23/7/2010

Whichever political party dares to play the nuclear energy card could win the election.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
My opinions, whether based on "myth conceptions" (Spin doc) or "Green based" (Shadow Minister) doesn't really matter since another 'opinion' of mine is that we, as a species, have already populated the planet to the point near extinction anyway.

The world's population was probably sustainable at 1.8 billion, but not at the ever increasing rates seen since I was born in the mid 50's. The fact that the population has reached close to 7 billion has only been possible due to cheap and abundant energy, namely oil. The highest production peak of oil was back in mid 2008 and it's doubtful that peak will ever be breached. Just look at what happens when an oil company is forced to drill in ever increasingly difficult places? We get wars in foreign countries and ecological disasters in deep water. All the time citizens of countries such as India and China strive to match the lifestyle of established Westernised economies.

It's game over. Without cheap, abundant energy, we won't have the time or energy to build your nuclear power plants in time to avert the energy short-fall anyway. And I can add to oil depletion fish stocks, soil, fresh water, iron ore and grains, the latter of which are being used in increasing quantities to fuel cats because of oil depletion.

No doubt some of you will call me a pessimist, but remember, a pessimist is only an optimist that's had their eyes pried open!
Posted by Aime, Friday, 23 July 2010 12:12:54 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
Yes, I had a good laugh at my second line too, which should have read "cars" not "cats" :-)
Posted by Aime, Friday, 23 July 2010 12:15:57 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
Aime is right. Nuclear is horrendously expensive. According to Time, price estimates for a nuclear reactor in Florida came in between US$ 12 and US$ 18 billion. To build one in Australia would cost even more as yoy would have to add in the infrastructure to process the fuel and as I understand it the US are currently keeping their costs down by using weapons grade Uranium as part of their nuclear reduction program (another option we don't have).

Think of the opportunity costs. Geothermal is amongst the cheapest sources of energy and you don't have to pay for the fuel. Moreover, it is a well proven technology. $12b would more than pay for exploration and development of geothermal resources.

By the way, Arthur N a small correction to your comments about geothermal. Some geothermal, notably New Zealand and Iceland is derived from volcanic heat. In Tuscany, not known for its volcanoes, they have the oldest geothermal power in the world based on latent heat in the earth and a viable option for Australia for shallow geothermal. "Hot dry rock" geothermal works on the radioactive decay in the rocks (usually granite) rather than magma.
Posted by Loxton, Friday, 23 July 2010 1:09:14 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 implication of the RET is there is something magical about renewables. What we really want is low carbon at an affordable short term and long cost. Unfortunately the RET will guarantee neither since it relies on 'clean' producers selling additional Renewable Energy Certificates (currently worth about $40 per megawatt hour) to 'dirty' producers which means we pay twice for energy. Since there is no CO2 cap there is little chance that renewables will actually reduce emissions. Meeting the 2020 RET of 45,000 gigawatt hours will require wind and solar to expand four-fold in the next decade, hydro being maxed out and wave and geothermal going nowhere.

In my opinion we should junk the RET and go back to mandatory CO2 cuts. The trouble is that coal fired electricity is so cheap without externalised costs. If nuclear got the same RECs, capital grants or feed-in tariffs enjoyed by commercial and residential wind and solar the economics would be far superior to coal. Of course we would pay anyway via higher taxes or power bills. As in the US there should be a nuclear waste disposal fund of a fraction of a cent per kilowatt hour. Note the domestic coal fired electricity sector spews out 200 million tonnes of CO2 every year and doesn't pay a cent.

It seems that putting a price on carbon is beyond the abilities of our current political system though some of us voted for it. Therefore the parties must give a leg up to all other forms of low carbon energy wind, solar, carbon capture, nuclear etc and see who competes best. If the idiotic REC system is the best they can come up with then I agree with the author they'll need to include nuclear.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 23 July 2010 1:24:47 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
"Solar systems use high quantities of fossil fuels and energy to produce. The raw materials need to be mined, extensively refined and manufactured into the final product. A solar system may have to be in operation several years to recoup the CO2 emissions of its own creation."
Just like absolutely every other product in our society- let alone the components required to generate electricity. Please reprint your 'argument' post by including this statement in every other energy source, or kindly retract that asinine statement.

Topic-
However, cost-wise, pretty straight-forward;

A nuclear plant's cost would be comparable to a coal-fired plant or other form of combustion-energy plant, due to both needing similar maintenance and infrastructure- not to mention a supply of mined resources and water for cooling.
However, nuclear increases the costs by adding the need for a location and logistics for disposal, and additional safeguards to contain, and those to decontaminate, the radiation at every step of the cycle, and increased safety and security costs and measures.
Also the longetivity of the need to pay to maintain quarantine procedures for the time after (including the disposal section).

Also, every nuclear plant is a custom job- each is different because it needs to be designed specifically for an (appropriate) site. That means that many parts and components must be custom-designed.

Solar panels, on the other hand, require simple circuitry and no moving parts nor plumbing, and thus are very easy and cheap to assemble, and can be mass-produced.

For the election- if you think either candidate is doing themselves a favor by advocating a nuclear plant, you're dreaming. It would be electoral suicide (especially when somebody asks where the plant is to be located.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 23 July 2010 3:06:06 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
Well, King Hazza, you are the only poster so far that has mentioned "security", an issue currently dramatised by the bellicosity and sabre-rattling in the general direction of that promoter of the Peaceful Atom, Iran. I do wish they would trade their nuclear fuel in for windmills and solar cells.

Perhaps the Israelis could negotiate a solar electricity deal the Iranians can't refuse. I would thank them profusely.

Some Israelis, a few at least, are aware of the nuclear terrorism issue. See:

http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Health-implications-radiological-terrorism-Perspectives/19561972.html#fullText

It says, among other things,

"Constructing a nuclear fission weapon requires high-level expertise, substantial facilities, and lots of money. All three of which would be difficult, although not impossible, for a terrorist group to pull off without state support.[1]

However, terrorists could carry out potential mass destruction without sophisticated weaponry by targeting nuclear facilities using conventional bombs or hijacked aircrafts."

Regarding a nuclear-armed Australia, the debate is certainly in the minds of some folks: see

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2010/05/nuclear-weapons-for-australia-ongoing.html

Dr Dennis Jensen MP gets a mention here - Electoral Division of Tangney (WA). Dr Dennis Jensen MP. Party: Liberal Party of Australia. Not to be confused with Dennis the Menace, I hope.

I ask you - how are our neighbours expected to know whether we are fair dinkum about not wanting nuclear weapons if we embark down the path, through nuclear electricity, toward nuclear weapons? All it takes is a little mistrust to encourage the sort of scepticism (justified or not) corrodes international relations. Not everyone in the region can be guaranteed to be as polite toward us as we are toward the Israelis, regarding their alleged nuclear arsenal - but then, they are on the other side of the world, aren't they?

It just seems like good sense to me to say "not in my back yard" to nuclear electricity.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Friday, 23 July 2010 4:17:28 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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