The nuclear waste in modern systems is recyclable
Should Australia Go Nuclear? (or at least move further down that path)
- Thread starter MarkB
- Start date
The nuclear waste in modern systems is recyclable
Pfft.
Recycling.
That is so last century...
Upcycling is the new trend....
So we could sell the waste on the black market to a country that supports terrorism and they could make a dirty bomb with it!!
Disclaimer - Mr (or Ms) AFP / ASIS / ASIO Officer reading this - this is, of course, a satirical post. I do not support or condone terrorism. Respectfully, Mark B.
No this is not true, the waste products after fission are far more dangerous and radioactive than uranium ore, which you can hold in your hands safety.
The waste products can be fed back through. Nuclear prevents more deaths than it causes (by way of reducing air pollution by fossil fuel methods).
The only problem is the end product the waste and where and how to store that longterm problem,,but if one had the ability to play with conjectures anyone that has driven through Europe who knows how long those plants have run semi-risk free from the 1980's onwards, Japan has had several problems,but after watching Godzilla last night I'm all for it.
.
.
Fed back through? No...it's waste, game over.
Providing a storage place for the world nuclear waste (For a tidy fee) is a fantastic idea, Australia is so isolated and as others have said extremely tectonically stable! Pity any government that tried to get that through would be committing political suicide...... If we wanted to run our country purly on solar power we would need an area 50km x 50km roughly around alice springs....... Better yet run it on algae using an algae farm! 5km x 5km is all we would need to meet our petroleum fuel usage the greens might like that better!
We should or should have go Nuclear in the 1970s but we stuck with coal thank ironically to the greens and now we have an ageing CO2 heavy power system.
France is covered with reactors and one of the lowest CO2 outputs in the world. You drive past them next to villages, no issue.
But we have missed the boat......
Recent advances in Cold Fusion, which provides very little and short life waste can mean in 10 years the game could really change.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ied-has-10000-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
Peter
France is covered with reactors and one of the lowest CO2 outputs in the world. You drive past them next to villages, no issue.
But we have missed the boat......
Recent advances in Cold Fusion, which provides very little and short life waste can mean in 10 years the game could really change.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ied-has-10000-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
Peter
The other aspect of Nuclear power that seems to have been missed is the need to place the plant near a substantial water source.
Can't generate power without steam.
This unfortunately is rather a scares commodity in any more remote areas unless you opt for the ocean approach in which case any disaster could be as huge a the mess in Japan right now.
Cheers
Can't generate power without steam.
This unfortunately is rather a scares commodity in any more remote areas unless you opt for the ocean approach in which case any disaster could be as huge a the mess in Japan right now.
Cheers
The Fitzroy River (runs through Rockhampton) is one of the largest river systems in Australia, and doesn't run dry... Joh Bjelke Peterson was musing about putting a uranium enrichment plant near Rock-vegas back in the 70's. Maybe a nuke plant would get the locals excited.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/31/1041196641714.html
Same with coal generated power though? I wonder if nuclear needs more water than coal? I'd guess not?
See ya's.
I just don't think water is an issue for a power plant. Most people live where it rains a lot. And that's where the power stations need to be. Water for a power station can be given priority over every other use. That's what happens in the Hunter for the Bayswater and Liddel power stations and they even have the option of pumping water from the Manning catchment via the Barnard river. We may not have enough water to irrigate crops to feed all of Asia, but there is no shortage of water when we are talking about high importance use in Australia for where the masses live.
See ya's.
See ya's.
Hi
They should build an artificial island 50 kilometres off the most remote part of Australia and connect it with a tunnel to get the uranium to the island on an underwater conveyor type system and run a nuclear power station on it.
Or better still just use Tasmania, this will wake the state up! They could even nickname the nuclear plant the new "Tassie Devil!"
Regards,
alicudi
They should build an artificial island 50 kilometres off the most remote part of Australia and connect it with a tunnel to get the uranium to the island on an underwater conveyor type system and run a nuclear power station on it.
Or better still just use Tasmania, this will wake the state up! They could even nickname the nuclear plant the new "Tassie Devil!"
Regards,
alicudi
I believe (and I might be wrong) that any nuclear power station needs to be somewhat close to towns/people as the power cannot travel that far.
So it can't be put in the middle of Australia it would need to be within a certain distance from where the power is needed.
That still doesn't dissuade me from nuclear power.
So it can't be put in the middle of Australia it would need to be within a certain distance from where the power is needed.
That still doesn't dissuade me from nuclear power.
Whilst trying to google how close power plants need to be to civilisation I found some interesting information on the 4th gen power plants. They are the ones which will be able to use all their waste. Very exciting stuff
If Australia ever wanted to move on to the next stage, become a major power in the region, a low cost energy producer that underpins other industries such as manufacturing, provide cheap energy for Australians for many generations, and ship excess gas and coal offshore, it should embrace nuclear.
For as long as we don't embrace nuclear, forget about ever having a manufacturing industry. People who want the government to subsidise manufacturing but ban uranium obviously aren't very learned.
For as long as we don't embrace nuclear, forget about ever having a manufacturing industry. People who want the government to subsidise manufacturing but ban uranium obviously aren't very learned.
Accidents and Incidents
Chernobyl
Kyshtym
Windscale
3 Mile Island
Are all Level 7-5 Incidents, Fukushima comes in at a level 4 there is also
Onagawa
Fieurus
Fosmark
Erwin
Sellafield
Atucha
Braidwood
Paks
Tokaimura
etc...(about 33 events in total)
Not a fan of Nuclear
