Labor MP's want nuclear power debate

[Lurk]

I think they think that because it'd be our first power reactor, or something along those lines.

But it's basically ****.

[Spl@!]

I've met some 2nd gen Chernobyl kids @ Daylesford speedway where they were invited to spend the day. They'd be about 30 years old now.

Language barrier doesn't matter when there's B-grade contact-allowed racing going on.

[TRB]

Still waiting on documentation for that poop, mate.

Go look it up yourself, what do I look like, your wet nurse?
aside from that, this is the internet, the chances of someone changing their opinion on the internet despite any proof or whatever are next to non-existent.

[digital_blue]

Still waiting on documentation for that poop, mate.

Go look it up yourself, what do I look like, your wet nurse?
aside from that, this is the internet, the chances of someone changing their opinion on the internet despite any proof or whatever are next to non-existent.

Why should we look it up for ourselves when it's you who is saying it every chance you get? If you are going to say things, back them up with hard facts.

[Marius]

Geothermal could be viable, but the problem is the high investment to risk. Investors won't see a single cent back until after they're committed practically all of their money, due to the high upfront costs. And then it's entirely possible it would be drilled in a dud location.

It's worth the risk, but the risks haven't been properly quantified yet, and that's the problem.

[Tastynapalm]

Well until the hippies figure out generating city wide power by rubbing 2 koala's together, we need to look at all options.

[Lurk]

Still waiting on documentation for that poop, mate.

Go look it up yourself, what do I look like, your wet nurse?
aside from that, this is the internet, the chances of someone changing their opinion on the internet despite any proof or whatever are next to non-existent.

a) If you make a claim, post some source material, otherwise you're full of ****. It's Internet 101 material.

b) I'm not a normal person.

[Bronze_D]

Geothermal could be viable, but the problem is the high investment to risk. Investors won't see a single cent back until after they're committed practically all of their money, due to the high upfront costs. And then it's entirely possible it would be drilled in a dud location.

It's worth the risk, but the risks haven't been properly quantified yet, and that's the problem.

to add to the cost would be the distance across which the electricity has to be transmitted...

most power plant have limitations on where they can be built (and you can't exactly build them too far off or else it stops being economical), but plants like geothermal, wind, or other sustainable power generation system have the extra problem of needing a location with good concentration of the harvested energy... which makes their location placement an even more headache than they already is.

geothermal is already a great risk to start with, then you lose more money as you carry all the energy towards the places that actually need the energy.

if that then goes to the bill, you can bet the ppl r going to scream murder.

[Spl@!]

Dubious source, but I remember reading it in mainstream news too.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01 ... l_powe.php
Geothermal Power Plant Triggers Earthquake in Switzerland

Even environmentally friendly alternative technologies can have negative impacts which are difficult to predict. The citizens of Basel learned this first-hand as they were shaken by an earthquake of magnitude 3.4 on the Richter scale, followed by 60 lesser aftershocks, including a quake of magnitude 2.5 a week after the initial quake, and another tremor of 3.1 as recently as 6 January, attributed to changes as underground pressures at the now discontinued project site return to normal.

[wayne19540]

Dubious source, but I remember reading it in mainstream news too.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01 ... l_powe.php
Geothermal Power Plant Triggers Earthquake in Switzerland

Even environmentally friendly alternative technologies can have negative impacts which are difficult to predict. The citizens of Basel learned this first-hand as they were shaken by an earthquake of magnitude 3.4 on the Richter scale, followed by 60 lesser aftershocks, including a quake of magnitude 2.5 a week after the initial quake, and another tremor of 3.1 as recently as 6 January, attributed to changes as underground pressures at the now discontinued project site return to normal.

After what has happen in Japan nuclear power is the last thing we need write now.

[Faint_Man_Australia]

Dubious source, but I remember reading it in mainstream news too.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01 ... l_powe.php
Geothermal Power Plant Triggers Earthquake in Switzerland

Even environmentally friendly alternative technologies can have negative impacts which are difficult to predict. The citizens of Basel learned this first-hand as they were shaken by an earthquake of magnitude 3.4 on the Richter scale, followed by 60 lesser aftershocks, including a quake of magnitude 2.5 a week after the initial quake, and another tremor of 3.1 as recently as 6 January, attributed to changes as underground pressures at the now discontinued project site return to normal.

After what has happen in Japan nuclear power is the last thing we need write now.

That was from 2007... early 2007.

[Bronze_D]

After what has happen in Japan nuclear power is the last thing we need write now.

actually, that depends on how you look at it...

the 40+ years old reactor proved that it's containment mechanism are quite robust indeed considering the building housing the reactor exploded into bits and yet the reactor case remains intact after all the punishment subjected to it including the overheat.

given that only 1 out of the 11 reactor plants that shutdown automatically from the earthquake suffered serious failure of the emergency procedure that followed (and that's the oldest one as well built before the passive security reactors that are used for the newer reactors) that's a pretty good outcome all things considered.

the other problem to consider is that the output from a single modern nuclear plant is WAYYYY beyond what you can get from other power plants.

a SINGLE modern ABWR plant have more output than several of the alternative plants combined, we're talking output over a gigawatt here from a single plant, no nevermind a single plant.. a single reactor in the plant technically can produce that, and a plant normally have multiple reactors, though of course in practice they never use them all at once.

[wayne19540]

Bronze_D I don't know enough about nuclear power to remark on your reply so I just have to go on what you have just written.
But I am taking it all in;
I am intrastat in it at one time they was talking about building one in lancelin that's not too far my back door step was not happy .

[TRB]

Dubious source, but I remember reading it in mainstream news too.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01 ... l_powe.php
Geothermal Power Plant Triggers Earthquake in Switzerland

Even environmentally friendly alternative technologies can have negative impacts which are difficult to predict. The citizens of Basel learned this first-hand as they were shaken by an earthquake of magnitude 3.4 on the Richter scale, followed by 60 lesser aftershocks, including a quake of magnitude 2.5 a week after the initial quake, and another tremor of 3.1 as recently as 6 January, attributed to changes as underground pressures at the now discontinued project site return to normal.

There are over 1.4 million "earthquakes" of 3.9 or smaller every year, have a guess why they don't make the news.
They are generally less noticeable to people then the vibrations a train makes as it goes along the track.

Secondly, the fractured rock method is one I am opposed to.
they should go deeper and use a closed loop system.
this means 0 risk of any contamination, reduced water requirements and not taking any risks fracturing the rocks.


The US cost [so far] of building a Gen III reactor has been about $3500 per KW.
So a 4GW reactor would cost around $14bil to build.
it would take at least 5 of those [probably 6 by the time they get around to actually building them] to supply just NSW. [NSW currently has 20GW available from power plants and its 2 state interconnects.]

also still no one can answer why you'd replace coal with another fuel-based system with 50 or so years of fuel left once china gets its reactors up and running by 2025.


of course they always say if we can invent a better reactor and actually get it to work then it would last a lot longer.
well duh.
in that case why waste the fuel now, why not save this finite resource that we don't absolutely have to use right away until we can use it far more efficiently?

[André Axe'm]

Wayne19540, with all the fearmongering that happen with anything nuclear, it has extremely good safeguards. You have nothing to worry about from being near a nuclear power plant.

TRB, if you put water down a hole 5 km deep, the rock at the bottom is going to fracture. Even if it does, the target rock is not porous, so it is still a closed system.

There are three reasons I would replace coal with nuclear.
1. We have the stuff and we don't have to sell it to China.
2. Less polluting than coal power. Possibly safer to mine as well.
3. Nuclear medicine.