The issue of Nuclear Power Generation has burst upon the scene again with the Prime Minister and his cronies advocating this very dangerous method of powering the country!
Intelligent people may wonder why we have to utilize nuclear fission to produce our electricity (Global Warming aside) considering the inherent risks involved,and not forgetting that we ARE supporters of the Nuclear Non Prliferation Treaty!
The real reason for their stance is that these corrupt politicians and their mates support the mining companies, both Coal and Uranium and will realise some form of reward from these organisations in return for their continuing loyalty!
Admittedly this envisaged plan is a costly affair, however at the end of the day this country would have a fully sustainable fresh water and power generation infrastucturethat would make us self-sufficient forever, without the risks of nuclear waste disposal and resultant contamination resulting in premature loss of life!
As long as we had the sun and the oceans we would have potable water and plentiful electricity.
Roughly speaking it would require over a period of time, the construction of Solar Desalination/Generation Plants around the coastline.Each plant would have an array of Solar Tracking Mirrors that would focus their concentrated heat on boiler assemblies creating high pressure steam and distilling salt water.The steam created would power turbines and pumps to draw the required salt water from the ocean and pump the produced potable water out to the areas of need.....the only by-product of the system would be SALT, which is a saleable commodity all over the planet!
The proponents of the Nuclear "solution" would ask what happens at night time during darkness?...the answer is that excess power generated during the day could be accumulated for use at night, or at the worst storage dams could be built at a higher level to facilitate down-flow to turbines similar to the principle employed at Splityard Creek on the Wivenhoe Dam in Queensland.( Unfortunately for Wivenhoe Dam it is dependant upon natural rainfall!)
This alternative is viable and requires a great deal of commitment, but the result would provide sustainability forever!

Ultimately it is a technical question. So as much as politicians might like to think they can control science, as the Catholic Church once thought and fundamentalists still think, they cannot do so. I note from your comments that you seem to be dictating to science also. More fool you, but you might be interested in this proposal to generate solar thermal power and use the waste heat to desalinate seawater.

http://www.trecers.net/

The proposal is exciting, but the technology is in its infancy.

FESTER:I would like to thank you for bringing that particular website to my attention! Very interesting and I would strongly suggest that everyone who may have an interest or misgivings about the use of Nuclear Fission for domestic purposes should consult this website!

The information contained therein only strengthens my suspicions and statement that our Prime Minister and his cronies are intent on pressing ahead with the implementation of Nuclear Plants in Australia purely to satisfy the financial attributes of their mates driving the Mining Industry!

NO SENSIBLE INTELLIGENT PERSON WANTS NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN AUSTRALIA
because not only would the obvious risks associated with Nuclear Plants exist, but implementation would give the Government the perfect excuse to accept the rest of the world`s nuclear waste for storage in our desert areas!

Happy to share the info, Cuphandle. You might also be interested in Vinod Khosla's views if you haven't heard them already.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/20070416_energy/video.htm

I find it annoying to see the government committing to long term projects of immense cost like nuclear and carbon sequestration. The big danger I see is that the technology will have been superseded before the projects are completed. As a case in point, Agrichar, a carbon byproduct from pyrolysis, allows long term carbon sequestration and improves soil fertility. Carbon sequestration from coal fired power stations is at least twenty years away and may never be viable. Yet this undeveloped technology gets the big dollars and pyrolysis gets ignored.

While I agree that solar thermal power holds greater promise, I dont believe that anyone can dictate the course of scientific advances. Viable spallation reactors might one day make nuclear power more appealing.

I wouldn't be too worried though. Australia isn't the whole world. So the main consequence will be the wastage of billions of dollars on dud technologies, then further billion of dollars to buy os developed technologies which were ignored here on the basis of nepotism.

FESTER: Unfortunately I am only on a Dial-up connection with a speed of 28.8kbs, consequently a lot of information is NOT accessible due to download time and size limitations...thanks anyway for the info!

Over the last few days I have been seriously thinking about ALL the contraversial "issues" that we are generally all involved in or affected by in one way or another as occupants of this planet. I listen to the authorities "feigned" concerns about the increasing road toll, only too aware of the disgraceful road conditions, especially in the country areas, and realise that tomorrow there will be more Radar Traps, Fixed Speed Cameras and more "Pollisemen" hiding in bus shelters with Radar Guns! Who wins again,....the Revenuers,... the roads will still stay in the same deplorable condition, plus there will be more and more vehicles and drivers "competing" for their share of this road space!

This is just one of the millions of "side issues" that are part of a plethora of created diversionary tactics, allowing the "Global Dominationists" to carry on overtly and covertly implementing their master plan of world conquest!

Consider in Australia alone: Beatties Amalgamations, Indigenous Issues, Equine Flu, Global Warming, The Drought, Howard`s Industrial Relations Bill, The Gunns Pulp Mill, Logging, The forthcoming Federal Election, Iraq,(the looming planned Iran"adventure"), East Timor, Solomon Islands, Healthcare, Nuclear Plants, Nuclear Waste Dumps, Drugs, Mortgage Rates, Interest Rates, Housing and so the list goes ad nauseum!

We certainly do have a lot of issues to occupy and sidetrack our minds!

CUPHANDLE,

ANY PERSON WHO DOES NOT CONSIDER NUCLEAR POWER IS A VIABLE OPTION IS BRAINWASHED BY THE HYSTERICAL GREEN GROUPS.

Now I don’t really believe that entirely but I figured we were trying to polarise the debate.

Your assertion that Howard is trying to introduce nuclear power in order to satisfy the mining industry doesn’t bear any real scrutiny.

Coal, one of our major mining products will lose out in a massive way, if we shift to nuclear. The amount of material needed to run nuclear power plants makes the coal industry look like its digging the whole earth up. A switch to nuclear would definitely mean a significant overall loss for the mining industry.

I am an Electrical Engineer and I can tell you that I have plenty of colleagues who will get good work no matter whether we go solar/renewable or nuclear. The VAST majority of them support NUCLEAR power for a number of reasons.

The most important, is that solar cannot, by itself, produce BASE LOAD electricity. This is a catastrophic flaw which can only be overcome by introducing some type of storage system which has not yet been invented. The possibility of storing all the power required at night and releasing it on demand isn’t even close to being available

Modern nuclear reactors are incredibly SAFE, as they should be especially the PASSIVELY SAFE types.

Nuclear power produces no C02. Nuclear plants can also act as desalination plants.

A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres (25-30 tonnes) of spent fuel each year. That means it would take 600 years to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool. So clearly sequestering nuclear waste won’t be a size issue. Green groups would love to have you believe that our deserts will be full up, like car parks during Saturday shopping, but that will never be the case.

Non proliferation is about the restriction of Nuclear Weapons, it is not about preventing countries from using civilian nuclear power.

Paul L.

The new designs might be good, but that will depend on how the construction materials stand up to higher temperatures and higher neutron flux. Hence a long wait to find out if they live up to the claims. In contrast, you can evaluate solat thermal technology at much lower cost and in a shorter time frame. I agree though that it is silly to ignore a technology for unscientific reasons.

You might also like to know that heat storage systems, like the nuclear reactors you hold so much hope for, are also at an advanced design stage.

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pubs_thermal_storage.html#adv_heat

The main challenge for solar thermal at present is cost reduction. This could happen in a few years, then there might be justification for developing thermal storage systems. With nuclear you wait about twenty years for a new generation of reactor. In the same time you could see ten generations of solar thermal technology.

Paul.L.

I can assure you that I am NOT a "Brainwashed, Hysterical Greenie!" far from it! I have spent 50 years of my life representing the battlers views, BUT I must admit that I am very concerned about YOUR future, and the future of this planet,....sorry about that, but that is the way I was made!

For your information the Coal Industry has NEVER looked better, with sales to China increasing daily!.....( I don`t think that too many jobs are at risk in the Coal Mining Industry in the forseeable future!)

I was an Aircraft Engineer who resigned after 21 years dedicated service, to became a Cattle Producer, until John Howard introduced his GST ...."The Tax that everyone would fairly pay!" His resultant Tax Department`s ruling was that "unfortunately you are NOT entitled to an ABN unless you are turning over $50,000 of Cattle per year!" which meant the ultimate demise of my business and many other "small" producers who had played a prominent part in the Agricultural success of the Rural Industry across Australia!.....you may understand PAUL.L. why I DO NOT have a framed photograph of John Howard on my Lounge room wall!.....( nor will I have a photo of Kevin Rudd either!)

Regardless of the assertions that you or any other of the protagonists of Nuclear Power may give, I for one will NEVER condone the use of this "Doomsday" material, regardless of whether it is to be used for weaponry or for domestic purposes, .....the risks are just too great, and after all, it is rather cavalier to be pontificating about our current situation, but we ALL have the responsibility of ensuring our families futures and the futures of generations to come!

TREC is inspiring. It's reasonable to imagine an Australia-wide network of Solar and wind generation which, with the different time zones, would just about obviate the need for huge storage facilities.
25 years ago I visited friends on Isle du Levant. they had a small solar power collecter at the gate and it powered their fridge, lights, radio, tv... the storage batteries were compact and trouble free. Germany has embraced solar! there are more solar units in Britain than Australia! We are the dumb country without parallel!
Australia wants coal and nuclear because of the mines and their export earnings. without coal Queensland would be bankrupt. Our degraded form of democracy puts demagogues in power, not clever thinkers, so don't be surprised when dreadfully stupid and wrong decisions are made. When the sole criterion for a political decision is, "Will it get me re-elected?" then of course bad decisions are made. A reform of the political system, by outlawing political parties and introducing proportional representation would be a start. Dumb politicians make dumb decisions -- its as simple as that.
The true costs of Nuclear, if you consider the extraction, construction of reactors, continuous mining and transport, preparation of the ore for use, huge ongoing expenditure on security and police, transport of waste and storage and its ongoing policing and security for hundreds of years -- with no certainty it will ever become safe... the possibility of accidents and leakages......... no one in their right mind would ever consider such potentially lethal technology when free wind and sun are there for the taking... especially as there is only about fifty years of uranium supply in the ground!
If a quarter of the funds made acvailable to research into carbon sequestration and nuclear were made available to the solar industry, we'd be using it now, cheaply. What our inglorious leaders fail to understand is that costs include everything, environmantal impact, emotional concerns, fear factor, the works... not just dollars.

Fester,

I would be happy with current generation nuclear plants. Nearly 20% of the world’s electricity is currently produced by nuclear power.

CupHandle

You well and truly missed the point of my capitalized statement. I was reacting to your rather extreme quote that no intelligent person wants nuclear power. It is certainly not true.

You have also missed the point I made about coal. If we go nuclear we will no longer use coal powered stations. Therefore coal producers will receive less income. This shortfall will not be made up by producing uranium, as far less uranium is needed to produce the equivalent amount of electricity. So to pretend that we would replace coal powered stations with nuclear powered stations because it benefits the mining industry is rubbish.

I don’t care whether you like John Howard or not, it has nothing to do with this debate. I don’t like him either if it makes you feel any better.

It does not surprise me that a greenie would say they don’t care what the evidence is; you will never support nuclear power. Just don’t bother to use reason to defend your point of view, since it is clear a point of faith for you.

Ybgirp,

There is no question that we can use renewables like wind and solar for SOME of our electricity needs. But it is simply impossible to run our base load power requirements off wind and solar etc alone. Lighting a persons home is one thing, powering a commercial production line is something else entirely.

The true cost of nuclear is always included in the cost of the power sold, including decommissioning the plant and storing the waste.

As for 50 years of uranium supplies, that is absolute rubbish, uranium is one of the most abundant resources on the planet. Fast breeder reactors coming online will use 1/60th of the uranium of current reactors and so will tolerate a 6000% increase in the cost of fuel without increasing the cost of electricity. This makes extracting uranium cost-effective from a host of sources which were previously too expensive.

Cuphandle, you lost your argument in your first sentence. The use of 'cronies' indicates that you are not a Howard supporter and therefore are not trying to be objective.

Your assertion that nuclear is a dangerous form of energy is just plain wrong. It is one of the safest forms of energy production. When I was a student in the sixties we were taught that the use of fossil fuels caused the direct death of about 277 Australians a year!

Ill-informed people like you have supervised the deaths of thousands of Australians during my lifetime by their insistence that we should not consider the safest of all, nuclear.

Forget the politics mate and do the science. If you argue facts and not fiction we might take your opinions seriously.

Paul L and geoffreykelley,
What about nuclear waste? Yes, I realise it is small in quantity, but it can pack a punch and lasts a very long time and there's no way to safely dispose of it. And do you deny there is a chance of catastrophic accident causing far more harm in one go than fossil fuels have over centuries? Do you not wonder what would happen if someone dropped a bomb on a reactor? Are you blithely unconcerned about a serious earthquake as happened recently in Japan? i wonder if you have been slightly brainwashed. Perfectly safe? I dont think so.

geoffreykelley:

You say that I lost my argument ( I didn`t know we were having an argument,....I thought that we were having an informed discussion) with my first sentence using the word "cronies" as John Howard supporters?

The word "crony" means "close friend or companion" according to "The Australian Secondary Dictionary". Coincidentally, the folowing word in the same Dictionary is "crook" but we will leave that one for another day!

Whether I am a Howard supporter or not is hardly the issue here, as Howard is merely the tool being utilized to try to implement the Nuclear Policy at hand.

I might mention that some of your "ill-informed" fellow students and others like myself, protested resoundingly against Australia`s involvement in the US inspired war in Vietnam!.....strange how some of us seem to have differing views to others in this community!

The whole issue of this discussion is the "folly" of the use of Nuclear Fission in the domestic arena and to proliferate the possibility of the use of alternative methods available, in an effort to avoid what could become another Nuclear disaster such as:

Hiroshima - Nagasaki - Three Mile Island - Chernobyl

at the same time we should NOT discount all of the ex-servicemen and civilians who died or are dying from radiation contamination, resulting from our own Atomic Tests carried out at Maralinga etc

CupHandle,

Whether you want to call it a discussion or an argument is irrelevant. As is your mention of John Howard and the Hippies protesting the Vietnam War.

We can remove Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Maralinga from our discussion about civilian nuclear power because these incidents were deliberate exposure of humans to radiation.

Three mile island occurred in 1979 and there were NO deaths directly related to this accident. Deaths from coal fired power stations massively overshadow any deaths or injury caused by the nuclear power industry. Deaths per TWy of electricity produced are 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.

Chernobyl was the worst nuclear accident ever, but the effects could have been controlled had the reactor been encased in a protective containment building which all western reactors have.

Modern nuclear power plants aren’t even in the same league, in terms of safety, as the reactors at Chernobyl and three mile island. Lucas heights has been operating for decades without any problems.

Ybgirp,

Earthquakes occur along fault lines in the tectonic plate. These fault lines do not occur underneath the Australian mainland. As for falling bombs, well, that would take an invading Air Force. This is not even a remote possibility.

"Earthquakes occur along fault lines in the tectonic plate. These fault lines do not occur underneath the Australian mainland. As for falling bombs, well, that would take an invading Air Force. This is not even a remote possibility."

Hmm, on the first, you might want to go and have a chat with a few Novocastrians about that.

On the second, falling bombs may be out of the question, however falling jets aren't, as we have already seen. Hell even a truck bomb properly placed could cause severe damage to a nuclear power station.