Nuclear power coming soon to Qld perhaps...

J.B · Post by **J.B** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:23 pm

horray!!! we have a winner!!!

Chernobyl wouldn't happen in a western country due to the design they used, and yes the reactors today are much safer.

falx · Post by **falx** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:39 pm

If your worried about pure Uranium you can use Thorium.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

Also Australia would be using the newer designs like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Even without that you may want to re-think the dangers of coal power before you condemn nuclear. Because the nay-sayers don't mention that coal smoke is more toxic...

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev ... lmain.html

US Geological Society if you don't believe it:
http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/fac ... 63-97.html

And there is at least one pommy greeny who has been quoted as stating he wants a nuclear waste dump under his back yard. His view was that he could use it to heat his house economically.

Daisy · Post by **Daisy** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:52 pm

mrmina wrote:u have 1000 times more chance of being killed in a car accident than being effected by explosion of a nuclear reactor.

maybe u watch too much tv. also lets not forget that these were the start days of nuclear technology. These days i believe it works well with may saftey precautions in place. i dont think we will see another chernobyl.

the world needs to move to cleaner energy. coal will keep farking up the earth. Wind energy would be ideal but god damn hippies oppose wind farms.

The positives outweigh the negatives on the nuclear debate.

I didn't say I was afraid of radiation. The question was;

J.B wrote:I still don't under stand why people are so nuclear/radiation phobic

My answer; "Hiroshima, Chernobyl ... 3 Mile Island ..." was a generalisation.
I agree that we need cleaner forms of energy. However, nuclear energy has dirtier waste than anything we have to date. We can bury it in waste dumps all we like, but we don't live long enough to keep an eye on it.

Barrabob · Post by **Barrabob** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:05 pm

Sticking one on a sand island would be really dumb.

Once again like recycled water I am all for it, technology has improved and we have lots of uranium and the summers are getting hotter.

Just have to work out how to retreat the byproduct efficiently.

Neka79 · Post by **Neka79** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:28 pm

Daisy wrote:This includes the radiation from the waste - for which nobody has yet found a safe method of disposal.

easy...just stick it under the bed , no one looks there!!

we love the simpsons...homer works in nuclear plant...YEA..lets get nuclear!!

mick_dundee · Post by **mick_dundee** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:37 pm

CSIRO have created a product called Synthrock, synthetic rock basically, the waste could be wrapped in that and then buried way way down. One of 3 advantages Australia could make nuclear power work is a) we're an island so ready access to water, b) we have our own uranium that currently we are selling for fuck all and not using, c) we're geologically VERY stable which means we can reaadily bury it WAY down quite safely.

The downfall is that every 2nd man and their dog who know SFA about nuclear and potentially how safe it can be will say "not in my suburb/state thanks" hence as someone says, it will be a gov decision and you won't get a say in it..

Don't say i'm all for it but if there is a better option wtf aren't we using it already? Coal has to go for sure.

javaman · Post by **javaman** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:10 am

The benefit of nuclear reactor is it only mutates the surrounding towns, while coal reactor screws the whole planet

Neka79 · Post by **Neka79** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:17 am

javaman wrote:The benefit of nuclear reactor is it only mutates the surrounding towns, while coal reactor screws the whole planet

put it near frankston..no1 will ever know!!

RG · Post by RG » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:33 am

Felix wrote:
J.B wrote:I still don't under stand why people are so nuclear/radiation phobic
Possibly because it will cost us billions, and at most be good for only around 70 years or less.
But I really think it is a non-issue...

FYI the new Kogan Creek Power Station cost $1.2 billion and it's only projected to last 30 yrs.

Woody69 · Post by **Woody69** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:15 pm

It doesn't really matter what we all do anyway !!!
Even if the Earth was still Pristine and Untouched, Like it was in Adam & Eve's day !!!
Because in another few Billion years the Sun is going to Supernova, and Vaporize the Earth anyway !!!
And there will Probably be more Mass Extinction Events before that as well !!!

So screw it, Party On Dudes ! LOL !

Woody

Daisy · Post by **Daisy** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:50 pm

Our sun doesn't have enough mass to go supernova. It will however, become a red giant. As it loses mass, the gravitational pull on the planets will lessen and their orbits will increase. The earth may yet survive it.

Woody69 · Post by **Woody69** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:57 pm

But even if the Sun doesn't Supernova, and just becomes a Red Giant, and the Planets Orbits Increase ! Wouldn't the Earth be too cold for Life ? Assuming we survive any more Mass Exctinctions ?

Woody

Woody69 · Post by **Woody69** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:09 pm

Or Maybe........ After Millions of years of dumping Radioactive Waste in it, The Earth will be Beautifully Centrally Heated ??? LOL !

Woody

Daisy · Post by **Daisy** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:09 pm

Life would probably not survive the original heating up, before the fire goes out.
There is also the Andromeda galaxy hurtling toward us at about 300,000 miles an hour. That will be spectacular. Shame we won't be around to see it.

Woody69 · Post by **Woody69** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:11 pm

Yes, That will be Quite a Show !

Woody