Should Australia Go Nuclear? (or at least move further down that path)

I have often wondered this myself.

Not specifically whether we should be storing radioactive waste - that's what third world countries are for :rolleyes: - but whether we should be:

a) enriching uranium if only for our own defence capabilities (see: MAD)
b) using nuclear as a cheap source of energy (barring the occasional catastrophe)
c) using nuclear as a clean source of energy (barring the occasional catastrophe)



Inspired by this, btw -

Bob Hawke wants Australia to start enriching uranium and disposing nuclear waste


FORMER prime minister Bob Hawke says Australia should start enriching uranium and disposing of nuclear waste in its most geologically stable state and territory.

The former Labor leader told a Cooperative Research Centres Association conference in Perth today that nuclear power was an integral element in tackling climate change, but had been vexed by the issue of safe disposal.

Based on a 25-year-old report made to him by Ralph Slayter ? who he appointed Australia?s first chief scientist in 1989 ? Mr Hawke said the best sites were in the Northern Territory and Western Australia.

"It would, of course, be entirely appropriate that before any action is taken along the lines I am suggesting, another expert scientific investigation be undertaken to confirm the accuracy of the information," Mr Hawke said.

"If Australia has - as we do - the safest remote locations for storing the world's nuclear waste, we have a responsibility to make those sites available for this purpose."

Mr Hawke said he had not yet discussed the matter with WA Premier Colin Barnett but believed he would entertain "a constructive consultation on it".

He said he had discussed it with the chief minister of the Northern Territory, Adam Giles, and he was ?an ardent supporter?.

Mr Hawke said he had spoken with some Aboriginal leaders about it and they saw merit in the proposal as it would bring in massive incomes and advance their communities.

Australia holds about 40 per cent of the world?s uranium deposits but only exports yellowcake, so if it enriched the commodity, it could offer ?a complete package?.

"This is a case where in doing good for the rest of the world, we can, in the process, do enormously well for the Australian economy," Mr Hawke said.

He also criticised the federal government for cutting $80 million from the Cooperative Research Centre program over the forward estimates.
 
I'd be in favour of all of it. If the numbers added up. High Equity always said that nuclear wasn't real cheap though? He'd know more than me about that? As far as storing the waste? Yeah, it's obvious somewhere in outback Australia is the worlds perfect place. So why not? Throw enough of the profit to the indigenous so that they are on side, and go with it.


See ya's.
 
b) using nuclear as a cheap source of energy (barring the occasional catastrophe)

We could have gone for natural gas as a cheap energy source if we'd had the good sense to sequester a large enough quota for domestic use, instead of letting companies export as much as they please.

Nuclear sounds attractive, until you consider the need to place it close to a population centre to get qualified staff to service it, and close enough to the capital cities to offset losses through the grid. There's a lot of folks who aren't keen having a nuke plant within a days drive of their home.
 
Absolutely yes. It's safer, more effective and more cost efficient than all other forms of power were currently using
 
That's what the locals at Fukushima thought.

Anything that produces waste that lasts a few zillion years I'm against.

Or we can continue down our path of poisoning the earth with all kinds of other pollution.

2014-built power plants are a bit better than plants built from 40-50 years ago surprisingly, so I don't have too much of an issue of using them in transition to sustainable technologies.
 
That's what the locals at Fukushima thought...

Blinky-e1319824451193.jpg
 
I never get it . Why the fk would one of the sunniest countries in the world and with lots and lots of space and a tiny population - wanna even think about a dangerous and filthy thing like nuclear ?

Develop solar and maybe wind it's all we need and 100% clean.
 
I never get it . Why the fk would one of the sunniest countries in the world and with lots and lots of space - wanna even think about a dangerous and filthy thing like nuclear ?

Develop solar and maybe wind it's all we need and 100% clean.

could that not be said of Saudi and oil?
 
I never get it . Why the fk would one of the sunniest countries in the world and with lots and lots of space and a tiny population - wanna even think about a dangerous and filthy thing like nuclear ?

Develop solar and maybe wind it's all we need and 100% clean.

Probably because the net environmental impact of solar energy is actually a negative one when you consider the total production, distribution, instillation and disposal when compared to how much energy it actually produces. I can assure you that solar power is not 100% clean when you consider the entire product life-cycle.

Wind power is not particularly efficient. It's also quite high maintenance and nobody has figured out how to stop killing birds. These forms of energy production aren't as good as they actually appear.

Australia's dislike for nuclear power stems from foreign testing in Australia and the Pacific in the 50s and onwards. There's no doubt that older stations had their faults, but this has been improved dramatically. A modern nuclear station emits less radioactivity than a coal power plant.

Comparing Australia to Fukushima is quite ridiculous. Australia is one of the more tectonically stable countries in the world, Japan is one of the least stable. Certainly we have the odd earthquake, but nothing like what Japan or the US West Coast experiences. We've got plenty of real estate which has no tectonic activity at all.

At this point it would take a lot of investment in nuclear technology to get off the ground, but over the long term Australia could easily become a world leader in this field.

There is one misconception about nuclear power however; it's not cheap. This could be offset by developing technologies and exporting them on our terms, along with the materials.
 
Probably because the net environmental impact of solar energy is actually a negative one when you consider the total production, distribution, instillation and disposal when compared to how much energy it actually produces. I can assure you that solar power is not 100% clean when you consider the entire product life-cycle.

Wind power is not particularly efficient. It's also quite high maintenance and nobody has figured out how to stop killing birds. These forms of energy production aren't as good as they actually appear.

Australia's dislike for nuclear power stems from foreign testing in Australia and the Pacific in the 50s and onwards. There's no doubt that older stations had their faults, but this has been improved dramatically. A modern nuclear station emits less radioactivity than a coal power plant.

Comparing Australia to Fukushima is quite ridiculous. Australia is one of the more tectonically stable countries in the world, Japan is one of the least stable. Certainly we have the odd earthquake, but nothing like what Japan or the US West Coast experiences. We've got plenty of real estate which has no tectonic activity at all.

At this point it would take a lot of investment in nuclear technology to get off the ground, but over the long term Australia could easily become a world leader in this field.

There is one misconception about nuclear power however; it's not cheap. This could be offset by developing technologies and exporting them on our terms, along with the materials.

Totally agree with this.
Wind power is sort of ok but no one wants it next to them as it's noisy.
Wave power might be interesting but like many alternative energy sources no one is spending much on it.
I'm totally behind the solar power paint though - that is WAY better from my research than many of the panel type technologies.
 
Yeah have you seen the waste from nuclear to though and what they have to do to dump it.

Personally , l agree solar has a way to go but l think it's only a matter of time before they can eliminate downsides. If it was honed in on , who knows what they'd come up with.
 
Yeah have you seen the waste from nuclear to though and what they have to do to dump it.

Personally , l agree solar has a way to go but l think it's only a matter of time before they can eliminate downsides. If it was honed in on , who knows what they'd come up with.

Solar paint news - the downsides have to be close to be going. I think the next 10yrs will see a lot of change in solar industry.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/caution-wet-solar-power-a-breakthrough-in-solar-paint-research-86878

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Solar-PaintThe-Next-Big-Thing.html
 
Yeah my theory is that in time , just like a light bulb or computers and millions of other things as compared to the same thing 50 or 100 yrs ago , they can quadruple the amount of power you'll get.
Maybe even 20fold or 100 fold and get the package down to a cigaret packet , they did with computers and they were much bigger than a few solar panels .

They only have to figure out how to amplify what the best thing out is getting now. That's not such a big issue.

PS , wonder what UFO's are running on :D
 
I have heard that nuclear power is radioactive neutral. You take uranium out of the ground then you put it back again later - After they've done whatever they do with the isotopes, it is basically unstable matter out, unstable back in again.
 
Back
Top