Select to expand quote

Paddles B'mere said..
@cammd, everything is about politics for a politician. Whilst some people may consider nuclear energy to be a potential solution to climate change; if a political party was to implement a "let's build a nuclear power station" policy next week they would lose the next election.

Spot on, which is why it's important for those that are truly worried about climate change to also support nuclear as an integral part of any power grid. If they don't support it they are either ignorant and therefore their views hold no weight, or they have a different agenda than just climate change.

I find it astonishing the number of people on this forum, and this thread in particular, that take the climate denial route. If you are on this forum, it is reasonable to expect that we all love the ocean and connected environment. If we take action to reduce carbon emissions, and the overwhelming scientific evidence is correct, then Win! We have helped saved our planet. If we take action to reduce carbon emissions, and the scientists are wrong, then Win! We have cleaned up our polluted skies anyway, at the cost of a small reduction in economic growth. We have nothing to lose by supporting emissions reduction, everything to lose by ignoring it.

@Paradox, unfortunately nuclear isn't without it's issues which is efficiency (waste vs output) and then storage of the waste. It's part of a very big gamble, it will be quite expensive to build a plant and there will be a long lead time on approval/construction before it could be brought on line. If a better/cleaner technology (that's not yet available) gets developed before the nuclear plant gets paid off then it could turn into a financial nightmare. But you're right, if society was really serious about getting away from fossil fueled generation then nuclear should at least be on the table and being discussed.

Select to expand quote

Paddles B'mere said..
@Paradox, unfortunately nuclear isn't without it's issues which is efficiency (waste vs output) and then storage of the waste. It's part of a very big gamble, it will be quite expensive to build a plant and there will be a long lead time on approval/construction before it could be brought on line. If a better/cleaner technology (that's not yet available) gets developed before the nuclear plant gets paid off then it could turn into a financial nightmare. But you're right, if society was really serious about getting away from fossil fueled generation then nuclear should at least be on the table and being discussed.

I'd love to see your sources on nuclear efficiency? It is widely regarded as the most efficient source of energy we know of, by orders of magnitude, also the safest by an order of magnitude. One persons energy needs for an entire lifetime can be sourced from material smaller than a C battery. Waste is minuscule and easily handled or even reprocessed. Happy to post some stuff on waste handling and disposal but it really is not a problem. Sweden have an excellent program.

The issue with nuclear (apart from lack of knowledge feeding irrational fear) is lack of standardisation and inconsistent regulatory bodies. They are issues, though nothing to do with the actual process. Korea is doing well with their program as did Sweden.

good read here: environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/2/16/nuclear-must-change-or-die

I agree, getting it on the table for discussion is the key, fear and resultant lack of knowledge is the killer.

Nothing peer reviewed mate, only what I've picked up from a bit of reading and watching some docos. I formed the opinion that the fuel had to be "turned over" quite regularly and therefore a lot of waste was generated (as a percentage of fuel actually used) but I've now read this article which gives a pretty good description of the fuel "life cycle" www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/introduction/nuclear-fuel-cycle-overview.aspx

Again, not peer reviewed but hopefully it's a good source

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Paddles B'mere said..
@Paradox, unfortunately nuclear isn't without it's issues which is efficiency (waste vs output) and then storage of the waste. It's part of a very big gamble, it will be quite expensive to build a plant and there will be a long lead time on approval/construction before it could be brought on line. If a better/cleaner technology (that's not yet available) gets developed before the nuclear plant gets paid off then it could turn into a financial nightmare. But you're right, if society was really serious about getting away from fossil fueled generation then nuclear should at least be on the table and being discussed.

I'd love to see your sources on nuclear efficiency? It is widely regarded as the most efficient source of energy we know of, by orders of magnitude, also the safest by an order of magnitude. One persons energy needs for an entire lifetime can be sourced from material smaller than a C battery. Waste is minuscule and easily handled or even reprocessed. Happy to post some stuff on waste handling and disposal but it really is not a problem. Sweden have an excellent program.

The issue with nuclear (apart from lack of knowledge feeding irrational fear) is lack of standardisation and inconsistent regulatory bodies. They are issues, though nothing to do with the actual process. Korea is doing well with their program as did Sweden.

good read here: environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/2/16/nuclear-must-change-or-die

I agree, getting it on the table for discussion is the key, fear and resultant lack of knowledge is the killer.

why do people do this......if you're a climate "alarmist" then you have to believe in Nuclear or you and what you believe in is all fake. It's the dumbest of dumb political wedges disguised as truth.

look at the costs of nuclear as opposed to the costs of other forms of generation....look at the speed of development of renewables.
We can do better.

There are so many alt right wing keyboard warriors these days who put forward their opinions based on a their own isolated privileged viewpoint.
Time to look at the future from a wider perspective.

The current infrastructure in place for distribution and production of power will remain and maybe reduced say 20%, for sake of argument. There will still be coal, gas, diesel etc for production of power. Moving to the future hopefully there is clean renewable power for the expansion of the power production.

Select to expand quote

Paddles B'mere said..
Nothing peer reviewed mate, only what I've picked up from a bit of reading and watching some docos. I formed the opinion that the fuel had to be "turned over" quite regularly and therefore a lot of waste was generated (as a percentage of fuel actually used) but I've now read this article which gives a pretty good description of the fuel "life cycle" www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/introduction/nuclear-fuel-cycle-overview.aspx

Again, not peer reviewed but hopefully it's a good source

Yeah good source. I think you have focused on how fast they can deplete the fuel rods compared to how much they need to produce electricity, which comes down to the real efficiency factor. Only a small % of the material in the rods is radioactive.

That source correctly identifies a typical 1000MW nuclear reactor needing around 27tonnes of low enriched uranium fuel a year. That's about 1.5 m3 of material. it would fit in a car trailer (might crush it though). That size plant can power a million homes.

You can compare that to a 1000MW coal power station which requires....wait for it....9000tonnes......wait for it....per day

That's why its the most efficient energy source.

And that is just with low enriched uranium. If you reprocess the fuel you end up with only 750kg per year of hazardous waste....thats 5 litres of material. If you powered all of Queensland with Nuclear and reprocessed you would have 50 Litres of hazardous material to dispose of each year.

That absurdly low volume of material is why it is so easy to encase it and bury it deep into bedrock, never to be seen or worried about again.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

why do people do this......if you're a climate "alarmist" then you have to believe in Nuclear or you and what you believe in is all fake. It's the dumbest of dumb political wedges disguised as truth.

look at the costs of nuclear as opposed to the costs of other forms of generation....look at the speed of development of renewables.
We can do better.

I think you are putting words in my mouth there. I haven't called anyone's beliefs fake, nor is there a political wedge to anything I have said. Only facts and questions.

I am not sure what you are referring to regarding the speed of development of renewable energy sources, but the reality is that we cannot put more than about 40% renewable sources into the current supply networks before you get problems. We can get to that 40% as fast as you like, but the reality is once you hit it the rest needs to come from Coal, Gas or Nuclear (or if you are lucky, hydro). The science on that is a hell a lot more "in" than any consensus on climate change.

So, my assertion is that anyone who thinks we need to eliminate CO2 production as an urgent necessity and doesn't want to consider Nuclear is unfortunately not abreast of reality. It can't be reasonably done. Considering this, I reassert my view that anyone who has been made aware of this AND also believes in a looming catastrophic climate emergency (as opposed to things need to change) but still will not consider Nuclear, is either ignorant of the reality or has a less than committed focus on climate change then they make out.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Paddles B'mere said..
@cammd, everything is about politics for a politician. Whilst some people may consider nuclear energy to be a potential solution to climate change; if a political party was to implement a "let's build a nuclear power station" policy next week they would lose the next election.

Spot on, which is why it's important for those that are truly worried about climate change to also support nuclear as an integral part of any power grid. If they don't support it they are either ignorant and therefore their views hold no weight, or they have a different agenda than just climate change.

This is what you said. "or they have a different agenda than just Climate Change". That means protesters aren't really committed to Climate Change but another agenda. Therefore they are fakes, frauds, whatever you want to call them. The subtext is if you don't support Nuclear , you're a fraud. Of course this is a false dilemma. You either have one or the other.......there is no other way.......Bollocks.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

This is what you said. "or they have a different agenda than just Climate Change". That means protesters aren't really committed to Climate Change but another agenda. Therefore they are fakes, frauds, whatever you want to call them. The subtext is if you don't support Nuclear , you're a fraud. Of course this is a false dilemma. You either have one or the other.......there is no other way.......Bollocks.

I think you are reading a bit much into my comments, but irrespective.....i'd like to hear your thoughts on why its "bollocks"

Specifically, in Australia, if the decision is made that we will shut down coal and gas power as soon as they can be replaced what your realistic plan to achieve this?

You've raised a good point Paradox, but the reality is that replacing coal fired energy TODAY with an alternative will come at an extreme economic cost that the community will not bear (ie it will become a political issue). So the long term economic gamble remains, will a cleaner alternative be found before the last loan repayment can be made on the initial capital outlay for a nuclear power station? And a more important, shorter term political view is - at what point will the community accept the cost of the transition?

Select to expand quote

Paddles B'mere said..
You've raised a good point Paradox, but the reality is that replacing coal fired energy TODAY with an alternative will come at an extreme economic cost that the community will not bear (ie it will become a political issue). So the long term economic gamble remains, will a cleaner alternative be found before the last loan repayment can be made on the initial capital outlay for a nuclear power station? And a more important, shorter term political view is - at what point will the community accept the cost of the transition?

Oh i'm with with you, although if done correctly Nuclear does not have to be the expensive option the US and UK have made it. It's the acceptance and regulatory environment that are the big hurdles. My points were about people who want change now at any cost. There is only one viable route.

What i'm getting at is that if someone is genuinely wanting to reduce CO2 emissions then they need to seriously consider Nuclear as there really is no reasonable near term alternative to fossil fuels for grid stability, and typically the same people (not all) that are screaming about a climate emergency are the same ones who refuse to consider the one option that could actually give them what they want.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

log man said..

This is what you said. "or they have a different agenda than just Climate Change". That means protesters aren't really committed to Climate Change but another agenda. Therefore they are fakes, frauds, whatever you want to call them. The subtext is if you don't support Nuclear , you're a fraud. Of course this is a false dilemma. You either have one or the other.......there is no other way.......Bollocks.

I think you are reading a bit much into my comments, but irrespective.....i'd like to hear your thoughts on why its "bollocks"

Specifically, in Australia, if the decision is made that we will shut down coal and gas power as soon as they can be replaced what your realistic plan to achieve this?

Glueing yourself to a predestrian crossing would be the first step

then once thats achieved go and get yourself a coal fired latte with your comrades and congratulate yourself on the instragram pics while the iphone recharges