1. OCAU Merchandise now available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion here.
    Dismiss Notice

Are you for or against Nuclear Energy in any shape or form?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Danske, Nov 1, 2011.

?

Are you for or against Nuclear Energy?

  1. For

    370 vote(s)
    90.0%
  2. Against

    41 vote(s)
    10.0%
  1. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    7,451
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    I don't think those things are comparable at all as they're just ridiculous and the other isn't... apples and oranges there.



    JSmith
     
  2. Doso

    Doso Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    5,955
    Location:
    [Vic]Melbourne
    They are absolutely comparable, they are all anti-science

    Nuclear power is without doubt the safest form of energy that man kind has have ever had per unit of energy produced - there is no argument it just is

    Anti-Nuclear organisations tap into peoples fears and general lack of knowledge on the topic and spread fear

    These organisations motives are generally to keep getting funding to exist or some sort of appealing to nature fallacy

    This is a very similar tactic that anti-vaccine or anti-GMO movement use

    This is why when you can get people to understand the basic's about nuclear fission that they often change their mind like Zion Lights or the Finnish green party
     
    adamsleath and Hive like this.
  3. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    18,463
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q 4109
    how many reactors are there operating now?
    how many accidents in the time all of them, past to present, have been operating? buggerall. and these were learning experiences.


    wool over eyes, let me count the ways.
     
  4. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    7,451
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    That is just complete bollocks to suggest being anti-nuclear is somehow anti science and to even compare it to the likes of anti-vaxxers or nutcases that think 5G is going to give them covid-19 is just offensive. Further nuclear reactions for power can be fission or fusion, just in case you missed that one in high school physics back in the day. We need to invest more worldwide to reach sustainable fusion, the holy grail of energy production.

    I and others were having an amicable discussion with Crewcut about breeder reactors and you've come in with hyperbole and feigned insults. I'm more interested in continuing the discussion which means both for and against or it's a one sided discussion... someone has to provide the balance.



    JSmith
     
    RnR and spludgey like this.
  5. Hive

    Hive Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,066
    Location:
    AvE
    The point made was that the way you are supporting your position on nuclear is the exact same way anti vaxxers support theirs. You are taking the anti-science approach to thinking (emotionally rather than clinically & rationally)

    If you took the reasonable approach, you would find that nuclear is not as bad as you make it out to be and aside from hydro, there aren't any safer or cleaner forms of generating electricity than nuclear. Obviously building and maintaining a nuclear reactor is more complicated than digging up coal and burning it and has extra costs. "Do nothing" is easier as i said. At the end of the day it's not going to effect this generation but it will our kids and grand-kids, we're leaving them a polluted mess of a world because we were upset over a small increase in power costs. The push for electric cars makes no sense in a coal supported grid. It's 11:28am in QLD and not a cloud in the sky, sun is out and our fuel mix is 85% fossil, the rest "renewable". I ask you this, how do you shift that in the other direction in the next 20 years? You don't.

    Think about it. At peak renewables time it is only 15%. What about at night time? Solar is the major contributor to renewables so how is that supposed to work? Will people put up with a grid that goes off at night?

    facilities do not leave nuclear fuel just lying around so i'm not sure why we are worried about nuclear weapons proliferation. In case this wasn't obvious, Joe Average does not know how to make plutonium.

    tldr nuclear is pointless because everyone in this country does not give a fat rats ass about climate change.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2020
    adamsleath likes this.
  6. spludgey

    spludgey Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    5,543
    Location:
    Sydney
  7. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    7,451
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    I know mate... but it's convincing the general public and politicians. Telling them they're fucking stupid and like flat earthers isn't going to fly or help in any way... and as I said someone has to provide the counter debate here regardless, or it's a patting each other on the back thread. I don't really disagree with much you posted... however I would like to see more focus on shifting to greener energy and investment in fusion tech. The best way to sell nuclear to the masses is fusion as the waste and weapons issue is negated. Further from what I can see whilst fast breeder reactors look viable, there should still be a good discussion around the matter and not just "trusting engineers"... as that has never worked out well. Humans seem to think often their systems are infallible, which is rarely the case.



    JSmith
     
    Hive likes this.
  8. spludgey

    spludgey Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    5,543
    Location:
    Sydney
    The very earliest viable fusion reactors could possibly be built on a large scale is 30 years. If we haven't sorted our problems by then, it will certainly be too late for fusion to save us.
     
    Hive likes this.
  9. Crewcut

    Crewcut New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2020
    Messages:
    119
    Location:
    Sydney
    Unless of course MSR's are what fusion always wanted to be when it grew up.
    It might be that only gigantic expensive tokomak reactors generate fusion.
    it might be that MSR's are just plain cheaper and better, and that nuclear waste just isn't a problem!
    A lifetime of energy would be about this size.
    it's only radioactive for 300 years.
    1.25 Olympic pools of waste generated for 25 million people, for a whole 70 years of energy!
    Yeah, that's terrible - how ever will we store the waste?:lol:;)
    [​IMG]
     
  10. Doso

    Doso Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    5,955
    Location:
    [Vic]Melbourne
    It is, just like I have pointed out the arguments against nuclear are playing against same emotive reasoning and it follows similar anti-nuclear arguments

    Just like the link adamsleath posted which he mistook for a Victoria government website (a very convincing one at that) what was the first thing we saw?

    upload_2020-6-30_15-23-31.png

    This is a perfect example of the propaganda that is portrayed by such organisations

    Guess what anti-vaxxers do? they do the exact same thing with vaccine injury (without putting it into context) listing chemical compounds without explaining the relative safety of said compounds and link it all together as big government/pharma money conspiracy theory

    Sorry, this is an semi-public internet forum with a thread title "Are you for or against Nuclear Energy in any shape or form?"

    If you want to have a private discussion go do it somewhere else

    What I have done isn't wrong, and I'm not going to apologies for it and I will stand by my statement that

    "If people understood high school level maths, and basic nuclear chemistry/physics which should be taught in high school they would understand the risks involved"

    This isn't directed at you, but in general to the wider western world as we no longer listen to doctors and engineers of physicist but movie actors, sports starts or influencers some of the dumbest uneducated people in society and this is the consequences
     
    Hive likes this.
  11. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    7,451
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    Some interesting info on fusion and design progression;

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/5-big-ideas-for-making-fusion-power-a-reality
    I didn't ask you to... doesn't mean I can't call you out on it.
    Instead of saying that... why not join the current discussion in a more positive way, without the BS?
    Good. :)



    JSmith
     
  12. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,787
    Location:
    Dark City
    Fusion is likely to suffer the same problems as nuclear. If it ever happens.
    Even more expensive and (economically) risky to build. While your fuel is potentially even cheaper, you have the same issues in regards to decommissioning and contamination.

    Nuclear technology is dead simple. Fuel is cheap. But its expensive to build (cheap to operate). Fermi built the first reactor in a fucking squash court in a couple of days.

    Its actually the same problem with Snowy 2.0.

    Digging a fucking hole in the ground is the same risk its always been. But now, we are so risk adverse and there so much cheap short term solution money, we can barely get a project off the ground to do that. Unlike nuclear, hydro has no radiation or pollution concerns, and the tunnel will last 1000 years no problems, maybe a new turbine every 25-50 years and the turbine is the cheapest part of the project. Environmentally its 1km under rock and uses two existing dams.

    Snowy 2.0 is a project we have had on the books for over 50 years. Its dead simple and will make money. Its already at an existing hydroelectric site and the entire national grid was built around its location (and can export to NSW, ACT, VIC, QLD)

    But people from both sides want to tear it down. The environmentalists want solar. The right wing liberals want coal. Something like nuclear takes a lot of long term planning and commitment. Hydro arguably was a good thing, think of how much carbon hydro has saved.
     
    JSmithDTV likes this.
  13. Doso

    Doso Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    5,955
    Location:
    [Vic]Melbourne
    The problem with hydro is that you can't locate it where ever you want, it must be built in geographically specific locations and then there are genuine environmental issues with damming up rivers.

    This is the fundamental problem with Snowy Hydro 2.0 and that it is located in Tasmania and not where we actually need the electricity (Victoria, NSW & QLD)

    The currently existing grid most definitely has not been designed to handle 2 GW of snowy hydro 2.0, we have only just recently found out that the Manus link upgrade is going to cost $3.5 billion then your will definitely going to have to upgrade all the other HVDC links between the states (they are woefully undersized compared to Snowy Hydro 2.0) which I'm sure will be many many billion dollars more. This is off course on top the $5-8B for the actual building of Snowy Hydro 2.0

    And your HVDC cables have a much shorter lifetime often in the 25-40 year time frame

    And keep in mind Snowy Hydro is just a battery it isn't designed to produce any additional electricity

    So how is this all being funded? mostly state governments writing blank checks and often hiding the cost from consumers something that only incredibly wealthy countries have the luxury of doing
     
  14. Doso

    Doso Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    5,955
    Location:
    [Vic]Melbourne
    Your more than welcome to call me out on it but I will continue to provide rational to my argument, your more than welcome to do the same

    I honestly don't know what your talking about, I'm am providing detailed information to a discussion if you want to argue my points then so be it, I do not see anything that I have posted as being factually incorrect.
     
    adamsleath and Hive like this.
  15. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    7,451
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    You mean like accusing people of being idiotic and comparing them to nutters like anti-vaxxers or 5G/covid lunatics? ;)

    I can see you have a wish to take a step back and forget about it, I'm happy with that and won't continue this line further.

    So, what are your thoughts on fast breeder reactors and the continued progression on potential fusion reactors?



    JSmith
     
  16. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,787
    Location:
    Dark City
    I think you are confusing the Snowy 2.0 project with the "battery of the nation" Tasmania link project. Snowy 2.0 is most definitely located in NSW. It is ideally located to feed, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Adelaide and the surrounding areas.
    [​IMG]

    The main links are already there.
    [​IMG]

    The main upgrade is making the existing 500 MW link to 2600MW. However, that will need to be upgraded anyway, even if you don't built Snowy 2.0 to at least 1-2GW. This is because Victoria is shutting down all its brown coal plants, South Australia has shut all its coal plants, everyone wants to export to NSW when they have renewable, but also want to drain the base load produced in NSW when the sun goes down and the wind stops.

    Which is the current problem. Every dumb state haphazardly builds their own solar/wind/coal setup and basically intends to export power to NSW and then draw on NSW when their renewables cut out.

    Because of the way the grid was constructed the pivotal role the Snowy scheme played in the original creation of a national grid, Snowy 2.0 makes a lot of sense. Don't hate it, embrace it. They are already building it, it uses existing dams, and its a key part of renewables for the future.

    What we need now is something to replace coal. We need something that can replace the big (1500MW+) coal power station clusters. The ones around Newcastle, Wollongong etc.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Crewcut

    Crewcut New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2020
    Messages:
    119
    Location:
    Sydney
    What the?
    But Snowy 2.0 will only generate 2GW.
    You'd be better off to just build a fleet of CAP1400's at bulk and price per GW could come down to the Manus upgrade! (I've seen estimates cheaper than $3.5bn per CAP1400 if we buy in bulk and remember that's a 1.4 GW reactor - you're actually getting closer to 3GW if you buy 2 CAP1400's.)

    That's what people keep forgetting - a renewable grid might be technically viable, but the sheer expense of storage is outrageous.
     
  18. Doso

    Doso Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    5,955
    Location:
    [Vic]Melbourne
    I'm not taking a step back from it, it's something that is present within western society that we as a society no longer value science, math or engineering

    instead we give a platform to allow people who are the least qualified to voice their opinions (which is fine) but the problem lies in that in western society we often listen to these voices more than people who are qualified

    You will find anti-vaxxers/5G/Anti-GMO etc people who honestly believe in their cause using similar logical fallacies that people use for anti-nuclear arguments (as hive pointed out)

    This was never targeted at you but it was a more generalist comment about Australia society
     
  19. Doso

    Doso Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    5,955
    Location:
    [Vic]Melbourne
    yeah your right, I was more referring to Snowy Hydro 2.0

    Do you have any costing for this? I can't even imagine how much this is going to cost and the funding model

    Yep, completely agree

    Wind and Solar make huge amount of sense... up until it starts destabilizing your grid and I'm a supporter of it until this happens

    The second you start having to move large amounts of energy big distances or store it, it becomes profitability expensive. This is why only first world countries can afford to do this sort of thing because they can absorb the additional costs via government spending

    poorer countries often will build hydro (if it makes economic sense), coal or gas (because it is dirt cheap) or turn to nuclear as they don't have luxury to waste money
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2020
    Hive likes this.
  20. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,787
    Location:
    Dark City
    Snowy 2.0 will cost about $5.1 b based off the current estimates. Really that is only going to deal with the cost of storing renewable for now. Snowy 2.0 takes in 2GW of power during excess production and can output 2GW of power during demand peaks. It addresses two problems.

    The manus link at $3.5b for 1.5GW. So the Snowy project is of similar cost to the link per GW. However, I expect snowy to have much greater local employment and be far more critical and involve more follow on projects. The existing bass link has proven highly unreliable and ran down all of Tasmania's dams and caused powershortages in VIC and Tas.

    We still need a better plan to replace coal.
     
    spludgey likes this.

Share This Page

Advertisement: