Nuclear Power: Do you support it?

This subject has been on the News, in parliment, in papers recently. So I thought I would find out what the members of ASF thoughts on the subject are.

I am yet to make a 100% commitment to a 'yes' or 'no' answer, however I am leaning towards a 'yes' (80/20).
Personally I want more information, I want ALL the pros and cons in black and white so I can make an informed decision.

here is a quote from an article I read which I agree with

The (nuclear) debate must focus on the facts and not be biased by emotion

Click to expand...

you can read the article here
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19268910%5E911,00.html

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Just to add to the topic:
I would like to hear your reasons for supporting it and visa versa.

Also, If you do support it, would have a nuclear power plant in your backyard so to speak.

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

I'm against it purely because of the lifespan of the waste. If it was as simple as loading the waste on to some space ship and aiming it at the sun, sure fine, whatever. But storing it in our backyard(Australia), no thanks.

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

I would disperse the waste; after all we have nuclear power in the land in very diluted state.

We mine it, concentrate, use it or sell to others to use it, then all greenies cry about the waste, and everybody runs scared about storage of waste product...

All the hype is just that, we are exposed to millions of years of half time needed to radioactive material to vanish or at least become of minute concentration, well we can atomise it disperse it and voila, problem's gone.

As I said we have it, if we don't use it will decompose regardless, so what do you say now?

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

The best case scenario is attractive.

The worst case scenario is almost too hideous to contemplate.

As far as dispersing nuclear material by atomizing it... well it appears the evil empire is doing just that, in a way, by spreading DU dust all over Iraq. The consequences of that do not excite me in the slightest.

On balance === against.

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Against....

But I think your question is wrong... 'Nuclear' does not equate to Uranium...

People are still working on Fusion reactors, Thorium reactors (half life of 500 years, no weapon uses)....

I am no expert... But Solar, Wind, Hot Rocks (GeoThermal), Hydro, Ocean Currents, etc, etc.... are they, or a combination of these, enough drive a base load supply.... Smurf is the expert on power it think.... would like to know more...

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Yes, so ERA, TOE, PDN, DYL all go up

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Happy said:

All the hype is just that, we are exposed to millions of years of half time needed to radioactive material to vanish or at least become of minute concentration, well we can atomise it disperse it and voila, problem's gone.

Click to expand...

Not a single solution to the nuclear waste problem since "the bomb".
Not even the yanks have got a clue about what is the best option, except to use depleted uranium in ordnance, especially armour piercing.
If Happy thinks it's all "hype" he should visit Chernobyl and help clean up the problem 'cause he reckons it won't kill him, I'll bet.
Decomissioning nuclear reactors is comparatively cheap, but waste storage is never factored into the equation for nuclear energy costs - because there is no solution (yet)!
That's why the nuclear option stacks up well commercially.

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Rafa said:

Against....

But I think your question is wrong... 'Nuclear' does not equate to Uranium...

People are still working on Fusion reactors, Thorium reactors (half life of 500 years, no weapon uses)....

Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the only naturally occuring isotope of thorium (232) has a half-life of about 10 billion years. To use thorium in reactors you need thorium breeders to convert 232Th to 233Th, which has weapons potential.

The unfortunate thing about fusion reactors for electricity production is that none of them exist. We're told it could be 40 years before they are commercially viable, which, funnily enough, what they were saying in the 70s.

cheers,
Chemist

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

rederob said:

Not a single solution to the nuclear waste problem since "the bomb".
Not even the yanks have got a clue about what is the best option, except to use depleted uranium in ordnance, especially armour piercing.
If Happy thinks it's all "hype" he should visit Chernobyl and help clean up the problem 'cause he reckons it won't kill him, I'll bet.
Decomissioning nuclear reactors is comparatively cheap, but waste storage is never factored into the equation for nuclear energy costs - because there is no solution (yet)!
That's why the nuclear option stacks up well commercially.

Click to expand...

Your argument is hysterical.

In fact this whole thread is an example of wrong thinking. The only considerations should be commercial, yet this thread (like people in general) treats it as a political question. Should we have nuclear power? let's have an opinion poll of the uninformed and then the govt can either make nuclear power compulsory or ban it. Should businesses use four cylinder or six cylinder vans for deliveries? let's have an opinion poll of the uninformed and then the govt can either make six cylinder vans compulsory or ban them. Absurd.

cheers,
Chemist

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

chemist said:

Your argument is hysterical.

In fact this whole thread is an example of wrong thinking. The only considerations should be commercial, yet this thread (like people in general) treats it as a political question. Should we have nuclear power? let's have an opinion poll of the uninformed and then the govt can either make nuclear power compulsory or ban it. Should businesses use four cylinder or six cylinder vans for deliveries? let's have an opinion poll of the uninformed and then the govt can either make six cylinder vans compulsory or ban them. Absurd.

cheers,
Chemist

Click to expand...

Chemist you obviously consider yourself of superior intellect and obviously of right thinking.

I could not disagree more vehemently that the considerations are purely commercial. This to me is the epitome of wrong thinking. The selling of crack cocaine should therefore be a purely commercial desicion... ludicrous.

The incident at Cherbobyl so obviously introduces factors other than commercial considerations. While not disagreeing with your basic tenets of the uninformed making desicions (and this appears to be an intentional facet of modern politics and life) the consideration of factors in addition to the purely mercantile aspects of nuclear power generation is essential.

The results of mistakes tend to persist in this game.

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Fundamentally, the nuclear question is about power stations and energy supply despite most debate focusing on the (perfectly legitimate) concerns about waste and so on. Nuclear power is just that - power.

I'll try and keep this easy to follow despite it being a complex and highly technical topic.

Energy sources suitable for electricity generation are:

1. Fossil fuels - coal, oil, natural gas and related fuels.
2. Nuclear energy - uranium and in the future possibly thorium or fusion reactors.
3. Renewable energy which is itself generally divided into hydro, biomass (wood etc) and others (wind, wave, solar, geothermal etc).

Electricity generation is by far the largest single use of fuel and it is also the only application where any fuel can be used to produce the exact same result. Cars don't run on uranium and planes don't run on coal but power stations run on anything from water to sunlight to coal and the electricity produced is exactly the same. Electricity generation thus represents the sole large scale ability to shift between different energy sources over the medium term.

Oil is needed for everything from plastics to aeroplane fuel - all uses for which alternatives are problematic. And with discovery falling steadily since the early 1960's and rising demand it is an increasingly scarce (and expensive) resource. It is also a relatively small portion of the total fossil fuel energy available to man. It this makes little sense to use oil for electricity generation given that alternatives are available that are both practical and far cheaper.

Gas is similar to oil except that its' primary use is for direct heat in industry and homes as well as fertilizer manufacture (that is, the food supply!) and chemical production. Used this way it is a cheap and highly efficient energy source. It is also the most readily available large scale substitute for oil. But just like oil, gas is a geographically concentrated (mostly in Russia and the Middle East) resource where discovery is falling and demand is rising. Gas is now about double the price of coal on an energy equivalent basis and that gap seems likely to increase. It thus doesn't make a lot of sense to inefficiently use the limited gas resources to generate electricity and thus deprive ourselves of supplies for more beneficial uses. That said, gas is relatively more abundant than oil.

Whilst it is often claimed that Australia has enough gas to last 100+ years, fully two thirds of that gas is likely to be exported. And then there is demand growth and oil-replacement demand as well. It's worth noting that Bass Strait gas is around 50% depleted now and the Cooper Basin (SA) is more depleted than that. There are plans to import gas into eastern Australia within the next few years as local supplies are exhausted.

Internationally, NZ, UK and the US already are experiencing serious depletion of gas resources. It is something of an understatement to say that this has broad scale political implications globally. With Russia and the OPEC countries effectively controlling future supply it's not likely to remain cheap. Indeed OPEC has long expressed the view that oil and gas should be equally priced or thereabouts.

Given the need for gas imports and the worldwide trend towards globalisation of practically everything, it is only a matter of time before Australian gas prices are set by international factors. Indeed with the competition for supplies from LNG export projects this is already emerging - why would a gas producer sell cheaply to the domestic market if exporting is more profitable? They won't and for that reason Australian gas prices are unlikely to stay detached from global pricing.

So, in short, neither oil nor gas are viable long term sources of economically priced electricity.

Other energy sources are either renewable or relatively abundant (though there is ultimately a limit to uranium and coal). It thus makes good sense to concentrate electricity production on these resources. The choice is thus between coal, nuclear and renewables.

Environmentally, it makes sense to minimise transport distances for bulky materials. To the extent that coal is to be used it thus makes sense to use it near where it is mined rather than shipping it around the world. Since it is relatively light weight, it makes sense to use uranium in those parts of the world lacking coal or viable renewable energy sources. So it makes sense to use nuclear energy in Japan, for example, but it doesn't make sense to build a nuclear power station next to a coal mine unless the world is going to completely do away with coal use.

There is also a major efficiency and environmental benefit in reducing the number of energy conversions which take place. It would be foolish to use natural gas for power generation and then have to produce automotive fuels from coal.

It's worth considering that a gas hot water service is about 80% efficient. That's a good example of using gas to great advantage since that's about 3 times the efficiency (and hence much lower greenhouse gas emissions) of an electric water heater. But burning gas inefficiently in power stations precludes its more efficient use elsewhere since supplies are relatively limited globally.

However, Australia is under pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's no secret that the Kyoto Protocol was known to many as the "Nuclear Protocol". That's not to say that nuclear energy is essential to reduce greenhouse emissions, it isn't, but Kyoto imposed timescales which heavily favoured large scale options of which nuclear is the only choice. Thankfully, the world isn't taking too much notice of Kyoto and so there is an opportunity to pursue other options which are more sustainable in the long term despite being slower to develop.

In any power system there are TWO quantities of interest to this debate. One is POWER and the other is ENERGY. In brief, energy is the total quantity and power is the rate at which it is delivered. Like saying that 10 kilometres is the distance (energy) but you drove there at 50 kilometres per hour (power).

Since electricity can not be economically stored it is necessary to produce it on demand. And that demand varies considerably throughout the day and between seasons.

Intermittent sources of electricity such as wind can contribute energy to the system (effectively saving fuel) but they do not add to the firm capability to meet a given level of power demand. That is, the wind will blow sometime (thus saving fuel at power stations) but not necessarily when electricity demand is high. So you still need just as many conventional power stations but they won't burn as much fuel as they otherwise would.

This need for duplication adds to the economic problems with such power sources. This applies equally to any intermittent power source although solar has the advantage that you can count on some generaton during the day even though the quantity will vary depending on cloud cover.

Wind etc is thus not a direct replacement for conventional power stations. It is a means of saving fuel and greenhouse gas emissions but not a means of avoiding building coal or other power stations in the first place. We would still need new and replacement conventional power stations no matter how many wind turbines were built.

Conventional fossil or nuclear power stations are limited by their maximum output. For example, Torrens Island power station (SA) can generate 1280 MW (1,280,000,000 Watts) at full output. Apart from maintenance, it can do that constantly as long as there is adequate fuel supply.

Most power stations don't have limited fuel supply although hydro-electric plants are normally limited in this way. For example, the Tasmanian system can generate about 2300 MW at peak but the average output over the long term is limited to 1170 MW by water availability. The Snowy can generate about 3700 MW at maximum but the average is around 580 MW - it was intentionally built as a peak load scheme.

By now you have probably realised that a lot of peak power (needed when it's hot, cold, people cooking meals etc) can be generated from hydro even though the total output is relatively low on average. There's also an obvious synergy between an energy constrained hydro system with reliable peak power capacity and wind etc which intermittently add energy but not peak power. The two work well together. So if we're going to use wind then Tasmania is the logical place to do it since it is the only state with a predominantly hydro-electric generating system.

To be continued...

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

my I remind you all that only 80-90 people died as a direct link to the chernobyl disaster. hundreads of people die a year on our roads! we don't make that sound very bad

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

twojacks28 said:

my I remind you all that only 80-90 people died as a direct link to the chernobyl disaster. hundreads of people die a year on our roads! we don't make that sound very bad

Click to expand...

http://www.nirs.org/mononline/consequ.htm

excerpt:

Other estimates range from several thousand, mostly "liquidators" who have died, to an estimate by Greenpeace Ukraine of 32,000 now dead. Greenpeace derived their figure by examining death rates from illnesses before and after the accident. Their research was solid enough that Yuri Shcherbak, the Ukraine Ambassador to the United States, accepts that estimate in the April 1996 issue of Scientific American.

Click to expand...

and while on the subject of things mercantile:

Economically, the consequences have been staggering. Even conservative estimates, counting direct costs, interdicted land, health costs, and related losses, are at $300 Billion and more.

First, consider that Chernobyl was in a very remote area, 80 miles from Kiev to the south and 80 miles from Gomel to the north. Then consider that Indian Point is only 35 miles from Manhattan; Limerick a similar distance from Philadelphia; Zion even closer to Chicago; Wolf Creek and Callaway in the center of our nation's agricultural heartland. According to the 1982 Sandia National Laboratories CRAC-II report (Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences), we could expect as much as $300 billion from a meltdown at Indian Point, and far less at most other locations. Fat chance. A meltdown at nearly any U.S. reactor, and at most European ones as well, clearly would reach the Trillion-Dollar range

Click to expand...

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

hence the word GREENPEACE. every other report I have read has said that only 80-90 people died as a result of the chernobyl disaster. I did not mention anything about economic problems

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

twojacks28 said:

hence the word GREENPEACE. every other report I have read has said that only 80-90 people died as a result of the chernobyl disaster. I did not mention anything about economic problems

Click to expand...

I know you didn't. I did.

Their research was solid enough that Yuri Shcherbak, the Ukraine Ambassador to the United States, accepts that estimate in the April 1996 issue of Scientific American.

Click to expand...

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

chemist said:

Your argument is hysterical.

In fact this whole thread is an example of wrong thinking. The only considerations should be commercial, yet this thread (like people in general) treats it as a political question. Should we have nuclear power? let's have an opinion poll of the uninformed and then the govt can either make nuclear power compulsory or ban it. Should businesses use four cylinder or six cylinder vans for deliveries? let's have an opinion poll of the uninformed and then the govt can either make six cylinder vans compulsory or ban them. Absurd.

cheers,
Chemist

Click to expand...

Chemist
I did not present an argument, although I made a number of points.
I did say "That's why the nuclear option stacks up well commercially", and your position is that considerations should be commercial - odd that we are saying, in part, the same thing, but my position is "hysterical".
If you believe what I said to be "hysterical" you should indicate what I posted is wrong/erroneous.
I am armed with a formidable array of "facts" on the nuclear industry and welcome you putting some of yours into play.

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

so what if one person believes there crap. there are many other reports which state otherways. greenpeace always pump up the numbers on everything to make it sound worse. I saw a report on chernobyl a few weeks ago and they said the deaths from the accident were 90,000. the number seem to grow by every report.

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Continued...

Apart from Tasmania where it would add energy to an energy-constrained hydro system (thus being a legitimate alternative to building new power stations of any type), wind is not an alternative to building new power stations for the other states.

Much is often said about air-conditioners adding to power demand. Whilst they do add greatly to peak power demand (especially in Vic and SA) they use relatively little energy overall. So they cause more power stations to be built but don't add hugely to fuel use or emissions. Indeed there are several power stations (particularly in Vic and SA) which rarely run for this reason - they generate large amounts of power infrequently and thus use little fuel overall despite burning it at a high rate when operating. Dry creek, Quarantine, Hallet (all in SA), Somerton (Vic) and Jeeralang (Vic) are all examples of such plants.

Despite being connected to Victoria via two separate interconnectors (interstate transmission lines), the SA grid is too small to support any single power generation unit on the scale of an economic nuclear power plant. Nuclear generating units are large for economic reasons. The large power plants in SA (Torrens Island is the only "large" plant in SA) use multiple smaller (200 MW and 120 MW at Torrens Island) generating units for this reason. The underlying problem is simply what happens when the machine unexpectedly goes offline (this happens quite often with all types of power generation). Take 800 MW out of the SA, WA or Tas grids and the whole lot will go down with it. NT doesn't have a much of a grid to start with.

Imports to Tas via Basslink (the Tas - Vic interconnector) are typically limited to 250 - 380 MW for this reason (the link can carry 480 MW continuously or 600 MW at peak). If it tripped offline from, say, 500 MW in the middle of the night then that would take the rest of the Tas grid down with it - a complete statewide blackout which would take some hours to restore. Given that this could happen quite often, it's not an option. Indeed even having a single 350 MW source (the largest generating unit in Tas apart from Basslink is 144 MW (3 units each of that size in the one power station for this very reason of system stability if it fails)) is only possible with a rather complex system which automatically cuts power to some very large customers (mostly smelters and paper mills) if Basslink shuts down unexpectedly.

It's worth noting that wind turbines lack the physical inertia of conventional generating plant and will thus tend to trip offline if anything goes wrong in the power system. For that reason having 50% wind in the grid isn't really an option either. One transmission line fails and that causes half the generation to shut down thus overloading the remaining generation causing that too to shut down - the whole grid goes down.

It would, however, be possible to generate large amounts of electricity in SA for export to Vic if smaller generating units were used. So this problem doesn't preclude the development of a large geothermal industry there provided that it consists of multiple smaller turbines and not one large one as a nuclear plant would.

So the debate about nuclear power is necessarily one about building a nuclear power staton in Qld, NSW or Vic. Since Queensland has an existing abundance of power generation and more already under construction and also has the cheapest coal costs, that isn't the logical place for a new nuclear power station.

That leaves NSW and Vic, both of which are relatively short on electricity and are needing new capacity.

The much maligned Victorian brown coal is actually very clean in a chemical sense. The problem is that due to high water content (up to 70% in operating mines) a lot of energy is used driving off that water at the power stations (hence the large steam plumes from the stacks at Loy Yang and Yallourn in particular). This causes more coal to be used per unit of electricity than the higher grade (low water content) black coal used in Qld and NSW (lower grade black coal is used in SA and WA) and hence higher greenhouse gas emissions.

But the good news on brown coal is that, apart from carbon dioxide and water, it doesn't emit too much else. It's chemically "clean" despite being inefficient and a big source of carbon dioxide (about 20% more than black coal).

Given the close proximity of the Bass Strait oil and gas fields and their depletion (the oil is over 90% gone) this makes Victoria the most logical place if there is to be capture and storage of carbon dioxide emissions from power stations. It's still not a cheap or easy process, but it should be easier in Vic than elsewhere.

In the meantime, there is also the possibility of converting brown coal to diesel fuel. Given the oil situation this would make considerable sense both physically (secure supply) and economically. The wastes from that process are then burnt to generate electricity more cleanly (in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) than conventional brown coal power generation. There has already been one proposal to do just that.

NSW on the other hand has lesser prospects for storing carbon dioxide underground and higher coal costs than Qld. And it needs new generating capacity but doesn't have the brown coal useful for making diesel. Nor does it have large scale access to natural gas for peaking power plants. However, there is a lot of potential to add peaking hydro capacity in NSW via modification of the Snowy scheme or building new hydro capacity. Whilst this wouldn't add energy to the system, it would add peak power. Existing NSW coal-fired plants have substantial unused energy capability but insufficient peak generating capacity. So run them harder and push the existing hydro output more towards the peaks. This would, however, do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Solar thermal power stations can generate power 24 hours per day. Basically it's a large greenhouse (literally) producing hot air which rushes up a "chimney" at very high speed to drive turbines located at the base. Like a hydro-electric scheme but in reverse (air rising instead of water falling) and using hot air rather than water. Not a total solution but estimates suggest that it ought to be reasonably cheap (comparable to coal or at least gas).

As for biomass, that's simply burning wood etc in a conventional power station rather than coal (though it's typically done at separate plants built near the wood to minimise transport).

Conclusions...

Geothermal seems likely to have real potential for development in SA. Given SA's high electricity prices (due to substantial reliance on gas) the economics aren't that bad. And it's virtually zero emissions and should be cheaper than nuclear. Geothermal also holds considerable potential in WA, Qld and NSW although SA is the leader.

Hydro can add modestly to total energy production (new dams) but can add greatly to peak power production. Doing this delays the need for new fossil fuel or nuclear power stations and is mostly of relevance to the eastern states.

Wind isn't overly cheap but as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions it would make sense to build more wind power in Tasmania rather than Tas relying more on mainland coal-fired power as would otherwise be the case.

High-tech brown coal power stations could both help solve the liquid fuels problem and also supply huge amounts of electricity in Victoria. Again, the process is reasonably economic especially when compared with nuclear.

Solar towers are somewhat unproven on a large scale but in theory at least it's reasonably economic. Certainly cheaper than nuclear as a means of reducing emissions and it does add some firm power capacity (unlike wind). There are good sites convenient to the NSW grid.

So overall I think the way ahead is to push ahead as fast as possible with geothermal since that is the big hope for cheap, clean electricity in this country. It would also end SA's problematic high dependence on natural gas.

Elsewhere, solar towers seem to have a contribution to make in NSW especially as does wind in Tasmania. Biomass has a limited role to play in various locations.

With new brown coal plants in Victoria (cleaner than existing plants plus the diesel production) there is another large source of electricity. It is also possible to build considerably cleaner coal-fired plants (about one third lower emissions) without the diesel production. And of course geosequestration is another option (put the carbon dioxide into old gas fields).

A reworking of hydro power more towards peak production would add to the viability of any new approach to power generation, nuclear included, and thus makes a lot of sense. Greens will fight to the end to stop it though since opposing hydro is to the greens what industrial relations is to Labor.

Nuclear? We may have to eventually but the alternatives haven't been properly investigated yet. It would make economic and environmental sense ONLY if geothermal, solar towers and geosequestration are not viable. Given the projected economics of geothermal and solar towers they are quite likely to be a cheaper option. At the very least we should build a medium size geothermal and solar tower plant to assess the costs before comitting to what is certain to be an expensive nuclear power plant.

For the nuclear industry there is thus a degree of urgency - build it now before geothermal, solar towers of carbon capture becomes a cheaper option. Given that greenhouse is a long term problem rather than a short term one, waiting another 5 years to assess the viability of these alternatives would be a low risk strategy.

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

twojacks28 said:

so what if one person believes there crap. there are many other reports which state otherways. greenpeace always pump up the numbers on everything to make it sound worse. I saw a report on chernobyl a few weeks ago and they said the deaths from the accident were 90,000. the number seem to grow by every report.

Click to expand...

From the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/722533.stm

30 killed immediately
15,000 relief workers killed
50,000 relief workers invalid
5 million exposed to radiation
52,000 fled the area around Chernobyl

Click to expand...