Australian Politics Forum

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #135 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:19pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:12pm:

I don't trust the concept - especially when human nature is involved - nuclear forces are simply are too large and unpredictable to risk unleashing! Period.

History has shown that many more people have died from other means of power generation than nuclear power. Ironically it's one of the safest forms around.

If you're talking about nuclear detonations, they can't happen from a nuclear power plant. A nuclear bomb is a very sophisticated design to get right, and the Uranium isotope must be extremely pure.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #136 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:23pm

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:15pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:08pm:

LOL...but you know I am correct - and that a many more new coal-fired power stations are not really on the agenda...

If you're talking costs, most of the solutions will come at a high price.

We can't do it in one hit with Solar or all the renewable technology put together. - not in the time we have. It would be better, sure, but we need to have either nuclear or combined cycle - probably both to fill a stop gap.

I disagree - unlike in the fossil fuel sector, recent investments have resulted in rapid improvements in the renewable technology sector...

Nuke plants require disproportionate safety engineering and construction costs - not to mention long-term contamination risks - and safer and more viable alternatives to nukes will probably come online long before humanity could be convinced to accept wholesale nukes as a necessary stop-gap solution...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #137 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:25pm

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:19pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:12pm:

I don't trust the concept - especially when human nature is involved - nuclear forces are simply are too large and unpredictable to risk unleashing! Period.

History has shown that many more people have died from other means of power generation than nuclear power. Ironically it's one of the safest forms around.

If you're talking about nuclear detonations, they can't happen from a nuclear power plant. A nuclear bomb is a very sophisticated design to get right, and the Uranium isotope must be extremely pure.

3 Mile Island and Chernobyl provide sufficient evidence for me, that nuclear plants are inherently and risky - no thanks!

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #138 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:27pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:23pm:

Nuke plants require disproportionate safety engineering and construction costs - not to mention long-term contamination risks - and safer and more viable alternatives to nukes will probably come online long before humanity could be convinced to accept wholesale nukes as a necessary stop-gap solution...

Do you know what the EROI for a US built Generation 3 Nuclear plant is? The construction costs and safety engineering costs are not disproportionate.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:34pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #139 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:27pm

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 1:34pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:00pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 11:57am:

Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year.

Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!?

You mean if somebody bombed the installation?

Quote:

True, but the risk is increasing all the time - as the operators of many nuke plants constructed decades ago continue to tempt fate, by operating them well beyond their originally-engineered lifespan...

All industrial plants can be extended beyond their projected lifetime - not just nuclear plants, and it doesn't imply any additional risk as long as statutory maintenance and inspections are carried out. The lifetime of an industrial plant is determined by economic factors rather than anything else.

Modern nuclear plants were designed to fail-safe, unlike Chernobyl. It wasn't so much the Commies that were to blame as the design of the reactor. Unfortunately this design of reactor is still in operation at Smolensk and Leningrad (3 Units from memory), but a number of safety features have been added to prevent a recurrence of the Chernobyl disaster. Nevertheless, I don't trust the design.

I don't think there's much risk now....All the RBMK-1000 reactors (like Smolensk ) have all been heavily modified, post-Chernobyl....to remove (or limit) the same type of meltdown as Chernobyl....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #140 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:32pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:25pm:

3 Mile Island and Chernobyl provide sufficient evidence for me, that nuclear plants are inherently and risky - no thanks!

Chermobyl was pretty bad, but as far as long-term risks are concerned, it's the most successful wildlife park in Europe today containing some species that would have otherwise gone exinct.

Tell me about Three Mile Island. I know about it, but you bring it up as if it had grave repercussions. How many fatalities? How many people injured, and how bad is the contamination today?

Which is worse? Three Mile Island or the Waterfall rail crash of 2003? Which one do people remember though?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: NUCLEAR POWER Reply #141 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:32pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:27pm: I don't think there's much risk now....All the RBMK-1000 reactors (like Smolensk ) have all been heavily modified, post-Chernobyl....to remove (or limit) the same type of meltdown as Chernobyl.... Correct.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #142 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:34pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:25pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:19pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:12pm:

I don't trust the concept - especially when human nature is involved - nuclear forces are simply are too large and unpredictable to risk unleashing! Period.

History has shown that many more people have died from other means of power generation than nuclear power. Ironically it's one of the safest forms around.

If you're talking about nuclear detonations, they can't happen from a nuclear power plant. A nuclear bomb is a very sophisticated design to get right, and the Uranium isotope must be extremely pure.

3 Mile Island and Chernobyl provide sufficient evidence for me, that nuclear plants are inherently and risky - no thanks!

3 Mile Island was pretty much a non-event to the people living in the area.....There was very little exposure to anyone....mostly it was a PR problem and expensive to repair, and that's about it.....

"In the aftermath of the accident, investigations focused on the amount of radiation released by the accident. According to the American Nuclear Society, using the official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year.""

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: NUCLEAR POWER Reply #143 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:39pm Yeah. 8 millrem is 0.08mSv or practically nothing in the scheme of things. It's swamped by other radiation. It equates to the same risk as drinking a can of diet coke.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #144 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:42pm

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:39pm:

Yeah. 8 millrem is 0.08mSv or practically nothing in the scheme of things. It's swamped by other radiation.

It equates to the same risk as drinking a can of diet coke.

Well I did read that 200millrem is equal to eating 1 banana a day for a year......
I think you'd get more than 8 millrem by walking under a power line...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Life_goes_on Gold Member Offline Posts: 4772 400kms south of Yobsville, Qld Gender:	Re: NUCLEAR POWER Reply #145 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:51pm Quote: and that a many more new coal-fired power stations are not really on the agenda It depends what you call "many more". As it stands now there are up to 15 new coal fired power stations planned for Australia.
Back to top	"You're just one lucky motherf-cker" - Someone, 5th February 2013 Num num num num. IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #146 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 3:00pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:42pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:39pm:

Yeah. 8 millrem is 0.08mSv or practically nothing in the scheme of things. It's swamped by other radiation.

It equates to the same risk as drinking a can of diet coke.

Well I did read that 200millrem is equal to eating 1 banana a day for a year......
I think you'd get more than 8 millrem by walking under a power line...

You don't get ionising radiation from a powerline, but yeah 0.08mSV is like 1/20 of the exposure from a single dental x-ray.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #147 - Oct 3^rd, 2010 at 6:35am

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 3:00pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:42pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:39pm:

Yeah. 8 millrem is 0.08mSv or practically nothing in the scheme of things. It's swamped by other radiation.

It equates to the same risk as drinking a can of diet coke.

There is a theory that a low level of ionising radiation is good for you (hormesis). The background in Australia is about 1.5 mSv a year. There is a place in India where the natural background is 50 mSv a year.

Well I did read that 200millrem is equal to eating 1 banana a day for a year......
I think you'd get more than 8 millrem by walking under a power line...

You don't get ionising radiation from a powerline, but yeah 0.08mSV is like 1/20 of the exposure from a single dental x-ray.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #148 - Oct 3^rd, 2010 at 8:39am

pjb05 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2010 at 6:35am:

There is a theory that a low level of ionising radiation is good for you (hormesis). The background in Australia is about 1.5 mSv a year. There is a place in India where the natural background is 50 mSv a year.

Yes, some research shows that up to 10mSv per year could have beneficial effects.

The average background radiation in Pripyat (next to Chernobyl) is currently lower than the average natural background radiation in Finland, but there are some hot spots. What's next? Therapeutic holidays to Pripyat? Grin

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 103136
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #149 - Oct 6^th, 2010 at 11:15pm

I think Thorium pebble reactors are the best bet.
We know they work & they can't melt down.
Neutrons have to be fired into them for them to work -
stop the neutrons & the reactor stops.

Thorium is abundant in Australia.
We should be selling the Thorium pebbles & then invent
the technology to provide the power stations to use it.
We could be world leaders in safe nuclear energy.

What a winner for business, technology & safe energy we could be.
We only need one man/woman with a vision to lead us.

Back to top

IP Logged