Seriously thoughtful Will more nuclear power plants be built?

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thank you, Marc, I didn't know that. Do you think that the treaty obligations can be met in the short time that remains?

My cynical answer is "No". I note that the Wikipedia link in my previous post states that:

"Analysis has projected Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions at 109% of the 1990 emissions level over the period 2008–12, calculated including the effects of Land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). This is slightly above its 108% Kyoto Protocol limitation."

It doesn't have a citation, and I haven't looked further for a source.

Cheers,
Marc

[HarryT]

I appreciate the difficulty of Australia's position, given the importance of coal-mining to its economy. It's easy to sit in an ivory tower and preach about reducing emissions, but when so many jobs depend on the industry, you do obviously have to consider peoples' livelyhoods.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A nuclear plant produces no CO2..

Depends. Try integrating stuff like the resource-delivery or plant construction.

The amount of "high level" waste produced is actually pretty small, and disposing of it not really very difficult. Dig a deep hole is a geologically stable area. Drop it in. Cover it with 100m of concrete. Problem solved.

As if. 1) Can you guarantee for any given region that it is "geologically stable under all conditions"? That there is no chance of a leakage e.g. into ground water?
2) Digging a hole big enough is not that cheap
3) The whole process is expensive
But - as I already stated - I am not opposed to nuclear power plants. Just stating that you should always remember the negative points.

Certain it's not perfect - no industrial plant can exist that doesn't have some adverse effect on the environment - but the environmental impact of a nuclear power station is a lot less than that of a coal station.

This I can agree with - wrt the currently known research.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I appreciate the difficulty of Australia's position, given the importance of coal-mining to its economy. It's easy to sit in an ivory tower and preach about reducing emissions, but when so many jobs depend on the industry, you do obviously have to consider peoples' livelyhoods.

Yes. OTOH: Problems with coal are known for more then one generation now. Still: New miners get trained, new people depend on mining, (nearly) no efforts are done to 'free' regions of their mining-dependencies (at least in Germany), etc

Tradition is NOT a reason to "never change something" - after all the automobile provided very difficult times for horse sitters.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by moz

I prefer the more traditional nuclear power - fusion.

Fission is just plain dumb.

You've got that backwards. Today's nuclear plants use fission... the separation of atomic particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

BOb

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

You've got that backwards. Today's nuclear plants use fission... the separation of atomic particles.

Actually he's right - in a universal perspective, fusion is the far more common technique

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Actually he's right - in a universal perspective, fusion is the far more common technique

Um, did you read the article I linked to. Current nuclear reactors use fission as do nuclear bombs. Fusion is what the sun uses and is only experimental right now.

BOb

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Um, did you read the article I linked to. Current nuclear reactors use fission as do nuclear bombs. Fusion is what the sun uses and is only experimental right now.

Yes, I know - that's why there was a smilie and the keyword "universal". IF you look at the whole universe, fusion exists far more widespread then fission.
(Oh and for clarity: There are nuclear bombs using fission, but there are also bombs using fusion...)

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Yes, I know - that's why there was a smilie and the keyword "universal". IF you look at the whole universe, fusion exists far more widespread then fission.
(Oh and for clarity: There are nuclear bombs using fission, but there are also bombs using fusion...)

AH... sorry I didn't get the irony of your post. When he said "traditional nuclear power" I didn't expect he meant stars.

BOb

[wodin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A nuclear plant produces no CO2.

Actually, they do. The safety systems include enough non-nuclear (usually diesel generators) capability to sustain the safety systems. Procedures mandate periodic testing of these systems, ergo CO2 emissions.

Granted , it’s negligible compared to a fossil fuel generating station, but it does exist.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by tirsales

(Oh and for clarity: There are nuclear bombs using fission, but there are also bombs using fusion...)

There are nuclear bombs that use fission.

And there are nuclear bombs that use fission AND fusion.

But there are no nuclear bombs that use ONLY fusion.

[moz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A nuclear plant produces no CO2.

That's true. Of course, every other stage of the process, including actually running the plant, produces CO2. From diesel mining trucks to garbage-powered vitrification of the waste, every stage involves burning something, usually fossil fuels.

[moz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Australia has the highest CO2 emissions on Earth, per head of population - all those nasty, dirty coal power stations. Don't you think that it would be a good idea to try and do something

Some of us are trying really hard to do exactly that. I moved from NZ partly because the campaign to go green in NZ seemed pretty solid, and Australia was committed to increasing its emissions as fast as possible. It still is, but now with added Greenwash for a lighter, whiter image.

I'm active both personally (we use 100% wind power and not much of it, 30l water per person per day, grow some of our own veges and so on), and politically through a selection of NGOs, directly talking to MPs and collaborative efforts like community gardens.

So, what are you doing?

[wodin]

Originally Posted by moz

So, what are you doing?

What am I doing? One thing I'm doing is refusing to be baited by someone who wants to brag about how much greener (s)he is than I am.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by moz

Some of us are trying really hard to do exactly that. I moved from NZ partly because the campaign to go green in NZ seemed pretty solid, and Australia was committed to increasing its emissions as fast as possible. It still is, but now with added Greenwash for a lighter, whiter image.

I'm active both personally (we use 100% wind power and not much of it, 30l water per person per day, grow some of our own veges and so on), and politically through a selection of NGOs, directly talking to MPs and collaborative efforts like community gardens.

So, what are you doing?

30l per person per day? Thats about 8 gallons per person per day? this includes drinking water, water for cooking, bathing, toilet flushing and personal hygiene?