Nuclear reactors

[Geoff]

Well, I thought the high sun areas were splat in the middle of the continent while the populated areas were all on the coast?

No, you were right the first time - we chose it as a penal colony largely because it was so far from civilisation...

[Warren Dew]

Given its half-life of 24000 years and its low mobility in soil, even low levels remain a potential threat to the environment for thousands of years.

Actually, the low mobility in soil is a good thing, not a bad thing. That means it will stay confined to the site and be easy to clean up, compared to the fission products that are escaping.

[JimC]

Well, I thought the high sun areas were splat in the middle of the continent while the populated areas were all on the coast?

All jokes aside, there are many inland areas, not right in the centre, with high sunshine levels and not that far from a grid connection. In many cases, there are areas that have already been cleared for farming, but are, in reality, very marginal farming land. The acerage would be cheap to buy, and you would not be clearing native habitat.

A large solar plant is to be built in the hot, dry north-west part of my state, Victoria, , but it is not really that far from major centres, in terms of electricity transmssion. We need many more; instead of governments fiddling with economic models and carbon taxes, they need to work in active partnership with private enterprise to build them en masse. Economies of scale will kick in after a while...

[Tero]

Put the solar panels where the oil wells are. Mostly useless land on top.

[roter-kaiser]

Germany had struck a deal with energy providers a few years back to phase out nuclear energy by I think 2018. Last year they agreed on prolonging operating times for 'younger' reactors. In light of what's happening in Japan, this process was put on hold and politicians and energy providers are committed to phase out nuclear power sooner than planned. I think that's great news.

That's downright stupid. The hydroelectric resource is tapped to the max, and solar and wind power can cover only a fraction of the actual energy needs, and you know what they will do to cover the difference? use oil and coal plants, or buy it from OUR nuclear stations.

I don't think it's stupid at all to switch of nuclear plants, considering the risk associated with nuclear energy. Even France is starting to rethink its energy policy.

It's true that Germany relies on gas and coal imports to meet its energy demand for the time being, but there also a big push to end that as soon as possible for geopolitical reasons.

But I tell you a secret: there are many more renewable energy technologies out there than just wind and solar such as geothermal, wave and tidal power, etc. Together with decentralisation and an increase in energy efficiency/reduction of waste I'm sure dirty energy sources can be ruled out pretty quickly. As more funding becomes available around the world for renewable technologies, the more effective and versatile they get to fit any countries situation. Had the money that was used to develop nuclear power (fission and fusion) in the last 50 years be put into renewables, we wouldn't have to deal with that crap happening in Japan.

[roter-kaiser]

Well, I thought the high sun areas were splat in the middle of the continent while the populated areas were all on the coast?

Yeah, and it's grim and cold here on the coast all year round.

The Melbourne University's Energy Research Institute released a study not long ago that found out the Australia could source its entire energy need from renewables within a decade for an estimated $37b. It is possible. More details are here: http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-car ... ralia-2020

All that winching about base load demand etc. actually comes from dirty energy lobbyist who hate to see themselves out of business. What we need is a commitment from governments to actually make it happen. The funding and implementation will be looked after by private entities.

[Svartalf]

Well, if OZ power is 100% renewable by 2025, we'll talk again

and the German attitude IS terminally stupid... I need only remind you of things like Amoco Cadiz, Torrey Canyon, and a few more like that to show that oil is quite dangerous too, nobody renounced using it because of that did they?

Handled well, nuke power is no more dangerous than other methods, and has the advantage of not feeding into the current climate change problem. What happened in Japan is a grade AAAAA catastrophe with a wave that far exceeded all expectations, and the thing had been built to survive most catyastrophe grade events, and did not hold that bad. Sith happened, we can learn from it without any need to throw out the baby with the bath water.

[nellikin]

Given its half-life of 24000 years and its low mobility in soil, even low levels remain a potential threat to the environment for thousands of years.

Actually, the low mobility in soil is a good thing, not a bad thing. That means it will stay confined to the site and be easy to clean up, compared to the fission products that are escaping.

Sorry, I forgot that soil is just dirt, not itself one of the two most valuable resources we have on earth (the other being water). It doesn't provide a basis for all terrestrial ecosystems, help clean the atmosphere, provide the largest terrestrial storehouse of carbon or cycle all the essential elements of life. Hell yeah, it's just dirt, lets just write it off. Oh anc clean-up? What do you want to do with the dirty dirt, and how do you want to restore the functions of the ecosystem once you've removed it?

[Hermit]

I failed to find out how many people get killed in coal mines every year, but heard on the radio earlier this week that the death toll in China ranges from 5000 to 20,000 per annum. As for people dying prematurely because of the environmental effects of fossil-fuel generated electricity compared to that produced by nuclear reactors on a per Watt basis...

[Warren Dew]

Sorry, I forgot that soil is just dirt, not itself one of the two most valuable resources we have on earth (the other being water). It doesn't provide a basis for all terrestrial ecosystems, help clean the atmosphere, provide the largest terrestrial storehouse of carbon or cycle all the essential elements of life. Hell yeah, it's just dirt, lets just write it off. Oh anc clean-up? What do you want to do with the dirty dirt, and how do you want to restore the functions of the ecosystem once you've removed it?

The "ecosystem" on site is concrete and asphalt. The plutonium won't kill any plants, because there aren't any plants.

[egbert]

A radio reporter reporting on the leak of plutonium detected around Fukushima also quoted a plant spokesman as saying this was not harmful to humans. Does anybody really believe that a leak of the most toxic heavy metal known on earth could be not harmful?

Seth must believe it - after all, the rightwingnut Ann Coulter has assured him that radiation is good for you!
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11636

[Svartalf]

Heck, remember the early 1900s when radium pills and radium coated lamp reflectors were all the rage, and when uranium glazed ware was in fashion so as to enrich the food in healthful elements?

[roter-kaiser]

I failed to find out how many people get killed in coal mines every year, but heard on the radio earlier this week that the death toll in China ranges from 5000 to 20,000 per annum. As for people dying prematurely because of the environmental effects of fossil-fuel generated electricity compared to that produced by nuclear reactors on a per Watt basis...

Uranium and Plutonium need to be mined as well. Did you look up this statistic as well?

[laklak]

The big news locally is one of our nuke plants has detected radioactive iodine from the Japanese plant. AGGGGGGGGGGHHHH! RUN! IT'S A NUKALER APOPCORNLIPS! GIANT MUSHROOMS AND THREE HEADED BABIES! Then they qualified it by saying the amount detected was approximately 0.01% of what you get from eating a banana. (They're radioactive, you know!)

Nukes are the only possible solution unless we want to either a) melt the planet or b) go back to animal powered subsistence farming and let 6 or so billion people die.

[JimC]

I failed to find out how many people get killed in coal mines every year, but heard on the radio earlier this week that the death toll in China ranges from 5000 to 20,000 per annum. As for people dying prematurely because of the environmental effects of fossil-fuel generated electricity compared to that produced by nuclear reactors on a per Watt basis...

Uranium and Plutonium need to be mined as well. Did you look up this statistic as well?

Uranium yes, Plutonium no...

It is not found in the Earth's crust, far too short a half life...

It is extracted from spent nuclear fuel, after being produced by neutrons interacting with U238 and a subsequent decay pathway..