Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nuclear Power/Uranium Mining In Australia And NZ  
User currently offlinePilotdude09 From Australia, joined May 2005, 1777 posts, RR: 4
Posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2635 times:

Now heres a topic that divides people BIG TIME!!

First:
Uranium Mining, why are people so against this? they take millions and millions of tons of Iron Ore, Copper, Zinc, Gold etc out of the ground but people get all worried about Uranium? Yes we are going to be supplying Russia but on very very strict terms.

Its funny there is a Uranium deposit just over 45km's away from the town i live in. And once again the mineral rich Pilbara has an estimated 30-50 year supply of Uranium and thats only the current know deposits, so prob more like 100 years of supply in the ground.

I say go for it, more jobs, way to cleaner and more efficient power and saves oil and coal etc.

Power

This one makes me laugh the most, the greenies and tree hugers all "Say No To Nuclear" but they dont say Weapons which is what everyone should be saying no to.

People seem to think that Chernobyl is going to occur again, do people honestly believe that there have been absolutley no advances in Nuclear technology? like computers, cars etc everything learns from mistakes. Australia or NZ wouldnt build a plant running 1950's technology and run by communists that had no clue how to run a Nuclear power plant.

I personally after reading about it, watching docos about it etc think it a clean, very efficient and safe way of generating power, why not whack it out in the desert somewhere? i mean if people are really that worried that would possibly be the best place for it.

Anyway im all for it, never used to be but after reading up, its defintley viable, i mean we cant keep using our coal and oil to generate power.

Now ill open the floor to your opinions, knowledge and thoughts  Smile


Qantas, Still calling Australia Home.........
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2632 times:

Once they figure out what to do with spent fuel I am sure nuclear power will take off. People are a tad leery of creating pollutants that have a half life of 10,0000 years.

User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5136 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2616 times:

Quoting Pilotdude09 (Thread starter):
I personally after reading about it, watching docos about it etc think it a clean, very efficient and safe way of generating power,

i lived within a few miles of a nuclear power station all my life, and would be quite happy to live beside one again. They are perfectly safe, and I have no concerns over nuclear power at all. In any case, this third arm comes in handy occasionally, and the glow in the dark effect is real useful too ..  Wink



That'll teach you
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2614 times:

Quoting Pilotdude09 (Thread starter):
Its funny there is a Uranium deposit just over 45km's away from the town i live in. And once again the mineral rich Pilbara has an estimated 30-50 year supply of Uranium and thats only the current know deposits, so prob more like 100 years of supply in the ground.

Which deposits would those be Pd?

I hope before we get too deep into disposal of nuclear waste folk will look up the characteristics of the waste and methods of disposal. Yes, there are some long life isotopes, but inevitably, their radiation levels are relatively low.

Disposal (apart from some really really mad schemes like putting it in salt beds like the Huchison Salt in SA)">KS) is mostly a NIMBY problem. A properly constructed deep site, in an area with low levels of seismic activity in dry granite presents few hazards. Check out what the radiation levels are after say 100 years or so, and you will find that they will not be much different from those in an economic uranium mine.

Chernobyl revisited. Newer reactors will be better. The real worry is could someone do what happened last time, override the systems and cause the crash by failing to follow procedures.

Mostly it is a bit of a lost cause, better to argue about something where you can effect change. The really lucky thing is that Olympic Dam copper and gold deposits happen to have a high uranium content and that meant it too was mined, otherwise all that U would still be under the SA soil.

Nice argument about Russia using Aus U to make nuke weapons when it is sending weapons grade U to the US each year to be degraded to non weapons grade material. Oh, criticism is so logical.  Wow!


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13078 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2608 times:

Unlike other forms of creating electrical energy, if something goes wrong with a nuclear power production plant, 1000's or even a 1 million can die. You also have the short and long term human health and environmental problems from the digging for the Uranium, to it's processing, to it's waste.
Unlike a time when the electricity from a nuclear power plant would 'be too cheap to meter' , over the years nuclear power plants cost a lot more to make and run than a conventional power plant due to the needs to control the radioactivity risks, security, and the multiple redunicies of the reactor systems. Nuclear plants have a life of about 50 years, maybe a little longer with extending maintenance, but the nature of nuclear power breaks down containment vessles, limiting the life of them and extremely expensive to decommission and replace. Americans forget that about 20% of all electrical energy is from Nuclear plants and replacement of it or adding to our power production will be expensive and limited. I wish we and everybody in the world were pressured to lower the total use - that is conserve more - of electricity and maybe we wouldn't have the need to decide to build new plants and if to be nuclear or convetional.


User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8552 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2604 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am curious why you have included NZ in your topic .

I can fully understand nuclear energy in Australia , you have the raw materials , and you lack alternatives such as hydro ( apart from Tasmania ) - although I would have thought you could augment your network with solar power quite easily - particularly in remote areas where the cost of transmission over large distances becomes a significant factor - although solar produces less energy there would also be less energy loss through transmission if it was generated locally - and obviously a lot less capital tied up in a sprawling network serving a very thinly spread populaton once you are outside the major urban areas .

New Zealand doesnt have the raw materials for nuclear power , and public opinion last I checked was still firmly against it , furthermore it is debatable whether New Zealand really needs nuclear power in the same way that Australia does .

Your country is much more industrialised than New Zealand so has greater power requirements . New Zealands population is smaller than that of greater Sydney and , in addition to hydro there is potential in wind , tidal , and geothermal energy to be explored .

One point to remember , even when safety concerns have been addressed , is that nuclear power involves huge amounts of capital upfront , and equally large amounts to be spent at the end of a stations working life decommissioning it safely - in Belgium for example many of the power plants built 30-40 years ago are coming to the end of their lives and even though Belgium is energy poor and very affluent there are many questions being asked about the amount of money needing to be committed to new powerplants - any government in New Zealand would have great difficulty convincing the smaller and poorer electorate there to invest vast sums in nuclear generation and the costs are too great for the private sector in New Zealand.


In short , leaving aside emotion I can see a growing case for nuclear energy in Australia , but I am not convinced that the same applies in New Zealand .



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineDa man From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 887 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 4):
I wish we and everybody in the world were pressured to lower the total use - that is conserve more - of electricity and maybe we wouldn't have the need to decide to build new plants and if to be nuclear or conventional.

They'll be nuclear, see this:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5116207.html

Separate thread for this story:
New Nuclear Power Plants & Reactors In The U.S. (by Da man Sep 7 2007 in Non Aviation)

[Edited 2007-09-07 19:08:54]


War Eagle!
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Coal power plants have killed far, FAR more people than nuclear plants. Children with asthma and so on. Plus, coal plants cause a great deal of CO2 release which also kills people by global warming.

Nuclear is unique in that it can generate all our power needs without killing even a single person. Of course, small mistakes do happen. Big mistakes, however, are a thing of the past. Nuclear power is a well understood, mature science and industry. There are no more surprises.

By saying "all our power needs" I do not say we should replace 100% of our electricity. By my own estimates, 30%-40% of electricity in the USA is purely wasted. Even in my own house, I can cut further. So many lights are left burning all night in big cities. Nuclear power can give us all the lights, computers and televisions we really need. We can eliminate killer coal power entirely if we use our brains to do so. Look at Japan. There you go. They use their brains. Even though they can afford more energy with their vast wealth, they make do with less. And they heavily use nuclear, as does South Korea. Good for both of them.


User currently offlinePilotdude09 From Australia, joined May 2005, 1777 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2577 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 3):
Which deposits would those be Pd?

Some station, cant remember which one but Andrew Forrest who is the CEO of FMG which is the newest mining company wants to get into uranium, and has said that Port Hedland and Karratha are very close to Uranium deposits <50km's but there are further deposits near Telfer and in and around the Chitchester and Hammersley Ranges. And those are some of the known deposits.

Also Kal-Boulder region and the Goldfields in general are VERY rich in uranium.

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 5):
I am curious why you have included NZ in your topic .

Reading on another site about it, and how people want it. There were plans to build a plant in Manakau in the 1960s. Also just before they discovered the Maui oil/gas they were going to assess sites in the 70's/80's for a plant along the coast.

But seems to be a bit of debate on the various NZ chat forums!


But i think the thing with NZ, is they really in 20+ years time arent going to have many more options, they cant use all the coal from the West Coast in the SI and the oil burners arent exactly efficient. And fellow Kiwis dont like putting dams in rivers eg. Waimate they dont want it touched so what else can you do?

And besides you cant dam every single river in NZ, which will prob end up occuring the way the NZ Labour Government is going with aunty Helen or should i say uncle  

Anyone know what John Key's views on power etc are??

Interesting views so far......keep them comming

[Edited 2007-09-07 19:12:00]


Qantas, Still calling Australia Home.........
User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5136 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2564 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 4):
Unlike other forms of creating electrical energy, if something goes wrong with a nuclear power production plant, 1000's or even a 1 million can die.

sorry, but thats BS  redflag 

Chernobyl death toll: 56 people!
Possible eventual death toll: 4,000

Source: International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN Development Programme and the World Health Organisation.

Reports:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article563041.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1563252,00.html

The last figure is just an estimate of how many could die as a result of radiaton poisoning, and is far from a firm figure. Your 1,000 to 1million figure is WAY off base, and is nothing more than scaremongering. It is a gross overestimation of any possible outcome. Most of the fallout from chernobyl was due to the lack of a fallout shield, something that is fitted as standard to all current nuclear reactors. If one had been present at chernobyl, the death toll would be even lower.



That'll teach you
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2062 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

Quoting Pilotdude09 (Thread starter):
why not whack it out in the desert somewhere?

I may be mistaken but I think nuclear plants need to be near water.

I would love to have Australia being powered by nuclear reactors. Many people say we could just put lots of solar panels in the desert but the number required to power our country would be rather large. Then you have energy losses through potentially thousands of kilometers of cables. Nuclear is a much better option as the entire country could be powered by only a handful of reactors. Although as usual the problem is disposing of the waste.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2524 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 7):
Coal power plants have killed far, FAR more people than nuclear plants. Children with asthma and so on.

The heavy metals problem is probably more serious. Mercury has attracted considerable attention and you might want to look into the Texas mercury boondoggle. Other trace elements are not so nice too.
Coals have the slightly odd property of having below crustal average abundance for most metallic elements measured on a whole coal basis, but many are above crustal averages in the ash from combustion. This means that the ash can present problems in relation to metals that are above the "average" problems. Mercury is especially tricky as some is vaporised during combustion and more available for ingestion.

Quoting Pilotdude09 (Reply 8):
Also Kal-Boulder region and the Goldfields in general are VERY rich in uranium.

The Kalgoorlie region is on the Yilgarn block and the Pilbara is well the Pilbara block. So far, they seem to have firstly a quite different geological history and secondly different mineralization patterns. The Yilgarn block, so far, does not appear to be especially rich in U, not compared with the Gawler block in South Aus.  Smile
None of which is to say that an Olympic Dam type deposit might not be found in either tomorrow, but so far the mineralization styles of these areas are distinctively different.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4819 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2519 times:

Quoting Pilotdude09 (Reply 8):
But i think the thing with NZ, is they really in 20+ years time arent going to have many more options, they cant use all the coal from the West Coast in the SI and the oil burners arent exactly efficient. And fellow Kiwis dont like putting dams in rivers eg. Waimate they dont want it touched so what else can you do?

Well New Zealand has a) the 2nd highest level of available fresh water per head of population in the world (plenty to go around for hydro, irrigation, drinking water etc)
b) New Zealand has a small population and only uses approx 37,000GWh of electricity p.a. 60% of which is generated by hydro-electricity (one of the highest if not THE highest rates in the world).
c) New Zealand is located in the 'Roaring 40s'... this means that there is constant significant wind movement over the country 95% of the time... If New Zealand so wanted to it could power itself entirely by windpower (when the wind is blowing of course), which brings up an interesting solution... use wind when its blowing and keep the water stored in the dams, then use the water when the wind dies.
d) New Zealand has significant Geo-thermal areas which provide a reasonable amount of electricity and New Zealand does have large coal deposits. The Cook Strait (between the North and South Islands has been identified as one of the top 10% of locations world-wide for tidal power... a set of seabed generators under the Cook Strait could (once the technology is sufficiently developed) provide enough power for all the present day needs... so 100% + 100% + 60% + 40% (ie tidal power, windpower, hydro power, fossil fuels/geothermal) = 300% current production and only 13.3% of that being either fossil or geothermal (so in reality less than 10% fossil fuels) means that New Zealand is extremely well catered for. In fact the thermal stations could be shut down entirely meaning only 10% less capacity (or leaving 260% of current capacity) available. Thats not counting of course solar power (the likes of Nelson, Wellington, Northland, East Coast all receive significantly large amounts of sunshine hours. Solar could reduce the average household consumption of electricity by approx 30% (or about 5000GWh). Better insulation, global warming will actually reduce New Zealands powerconsumption needs also.


Back on Topic.... I don't understand why this thread mentions New Zealand in the first place.

Bring on Nuclear Fusion is all I can say  Wink



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinePilotdude09 From Australia, joined May 2005, 1777 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2487 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 10):
I may be mistaken but I think nuclear plants need to be near water.

Yeah it does, but you could create a man made lake/water supply or similar.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 12):
Back on Topic.... I don't understand why this thread mentions New Zealand in the first place.

Just thought id add it to the mix, because NZ has had plans to introduce nuclear power in the past. Also was on the TVNZ website for a few days in a row about how NZ may have to rely in it, but as your post says there are many many many other ways to have electricity in NZ.

But you defintley couldnt rely on solar electricity  Wink

I know up central otago, alex, q-town, cromwell and wanka have several wind turbines especially the winerys and orchards which are powered soley by wind power, with the wind coming of Lake Dunstan. Lake Dunstan and the Clutha together do pretty well at powering NZ, Wind, and 2x Dams.



Qantas, Still calling Australia Home.........
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2485 times:

Quoting Pilotdude09 (Reply 13):
Quoting QFA380 (Reply 10):
I may be mistaken but I think nuclear plants need to be near water.

Yeah it does, but you could create a man made lake/water supply or similar.

You can run an air cooled plant similar to one in South Africa (coal fired). The problem is you lose about 5% points efficiency due to less efficient cooling and the truly astonishing amount of fans you need to shift the (hot) air! And without water, what are you going to use to make a man-made lake dare I ask?  Wow!


User currently offlineRammstein From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2483 times:

Quoting Pilotdude09 (Thread starter):
People seem to think that Chernobyl is going to occur again, do people honestly believe that there have been absolutley no advances in Nuclear technology?

The point is: do people honestly think that even in 1986 the technology of western world reactors was the same as eastern ("red") reactors? This is making me laugh.


User currently offlineGalapagapop From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 910 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

Well if plants started using less aggressive cooling systems made of up inert gases, which will not rapidly expand, should a pipe or vessel burst, spent fuel could be better used and most if not all remaining dangers can be pretty much removed. Spent fuel and other byproducts all still emit radioactivity, problem is current plants need high energy emitting fuels that can better heat the water/steam. What should be interesting are the new experimental plants and projects that don't use water to directly cool the core, but rather inert gases, which get moved to conductors that move the energy to the water end production process. Thusly removing water from the core itself, making the only way for a breech to to happen to be from super heating or some outside force, rather than a pressurization of the vessel from within. Problem is the extra step from reaction to steam generators, costs several efficiency points, which is in the wrong direction that nuclear energy wants to go. The main benefit is possibly using spent fuels and by using them, less wear on a reactor due to less energy being emitted overall.


The biggest issue Nuclear power faces are from the regulators who's no tolerance policy on radioactivity or chances of radioactivity, makes up over half of the costs of nuclear power, humans can withstand certain levels of radioactivity and do so daily, problem is the limit on PPM on nuclear power plants, is a blatant double standard versus coal and gas power plants. Both of which produce and release more radioactive material year in year out, both by volume and PPM. These releases have been deemed safe, as radioactivity is a facet of daily life on Earth. Problem is these principles are not translated to the Nuclear Power industry where radioactivity is not allowed.

Take rules on scrap metal from a gas power plant versus a nuclear power plant:
Scrap steel from gas power plants may be recycled if they contain less than 500,000 Bq/kg of radioactivity
Nothing may be recycled by a nuclear power plant (even concrete) is it exceeds 500 Bq/kg of radioactivity.

More noteworthy is that in gas, coal, and oil some products based upon their sources and the gravitational concentrations can contain up to 3000 Bq/kg of radioactivity naturally.

Noticing a double standard? In fact all of the ash captured by coal power plants and used in ash dams is now highly sought after thanks in part to astronomical uranium prices, because it contains fairly large amounts of uranium. China is already working on powering one of their plants through simply leeching uranium from the coal ash, which on average can contain anywhere from 5-60 PPM of uranium, but has been known in many deposits to contained over 200PPM up to 500PPM. What's noteworthy is uranium, thorium, radium-226, and lead-210 are all commonly found in coal, and when burned make up the stable flyash, problem is only 99% of flyash is retained in modern plants, and 90% in older plants (Which there are plenty of. Seems good no? Well when you put into perspective with the millions of tons of the stuff burned yearly coupled with the amount released, several hundred tons of Uranium and other harmful pollutants are released every year directly into the atmosphere without so much of a word or protest outside of asthma concerns. Haven't heard anything about radioactivity from Uranium and Thorium, have you? (Radium -226 is dangerous but due to it's short half life is not so much a concern, unless it's concerning it's concentrated solids found in the plants themselves). On the other hand the amount of Uranium released by a Nuclear power plants into the atmosphere every year? Almost zero.

That's 280 million tons created yearly, with its solid concentrates seen in scrap metals and the plants themselves, can be buried, released, or recycled, while the materials from Nuclear power plants must enter deep storage and never see the light of day.

Nuclear power is by a long shot the safest form of energy production right now, at least until fission finally starts working. Anything thought of otherwise is pure political posturing and irrational fears.


User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2461 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 1):
Once they figure out what to do with spent fuel I am sure nuclear power will take off. People are a tad leery of creating pollutants that have a half life of 10,0000 years

The French are already doing that. The Technology to recycle Uranium control rods is out there.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 4):
Unlike other forms of creating electrical energy, if something goes wrong with a nuclear power production plant, 1000's or even a 1 million can die. You also have the short and long term human health and environmental problems from the digging for the Uranium, to it's processing, to it's waste.
Unlike a time when the electricity from a nuclear power plant would 'be too cheap to meter' , over the years nuclear power plants cost a lot more to make and run than a conventional power plant due to the needs to control the radioactivity risks, security, and the multiple redunicies of the reactor systems.

Belive me I am far from a fan of the French but this is one thing that they do right. And that is that most of the power they recieve is from Nuclear power plants.Western Europe as a whole is far ahead of the rest of the world.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 7):
Coal power plants have killed far, FAR more people than nuclear plants. Children with asthma and so on. Plus, coal plants cause a great deal of CO2 release which also kills people by global warming.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl  Almost fell out of my chair with this one. Since when has the warming planet killed anyone. The Earth has been warming for 10,000 years and we and the rest of the life on the planet have done OK. The seas have also been rising since the end of the last Ice Age. No new news hear. Just more liberal propaganda. And pay us your carbon tax


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
The heavy metals problem is probably more serious. Mercury has attracted considerable attention and you might want to look into the Texas mercury boondoggle. Other trace elements are not so nice too.
Coals have the slightly odd property of having below crustal average abundance for most metallic elements measured on a whole coal basis, but many are above crustal averages in the ash from combustion. This means that the ash can present problems in relation to metals that are above the "average" problems. Mercury is especially tricky as some is vaporised during combustion and more available for ingestion.

Interesting point. There's a fair bit of arsenic in coal as well, IIRC.

Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 16):
The biggest issue Nuclear power faces are from the regulators who's no tolerance policy on radioactivity or chances of radioactivity, makes up over half of the costs of nuclear power, humans can withstand certain levels of radioactivity and do so daily, problem is the limit on PPM on nuclear power plants, is a blatant double standard versus coal and gas power plants

Yes, the Linear No-Threshold Theory of radiation poisoning is such a joke -- and costs the business billions annually. There is no discernible effect below 50 Rem -- I think that's 0.5 milliservierts in the newer units. Nothing.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2426 times:

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 18):
Interesting point. There's a fair bit of arsenic in coal as well, IIRC.

Yes, plenty of arsenic, it is associated with the pyrite which can get up to about 6% in some Mid West coals in the US. A study has been published in Int J Coal Geology by Bob Finklestein on the epidemiology of minor and trace element poisoning in China from the use of coal. I might be able to find an open link, but the article cited is an Elsevier publication not generally available.
However, mercury from coal is all the go in the US at present.

Back to arsenic, coal arsenic is probably small compared with that from copper smelters, but more widely distributed. Arsenic is much more difficult to render inert to biological systems compared with mercury. There are some really nice inert compounds such as iron arsenate and calcium arsenate which have very low solubility. However, calcium oxide and iron hydroxides have lower solubility products and so these compound hydrolize liberating the arsenic into groundwaters. AFAIK, there is no solution to arsenic disposal, unlike nuclear waste!!!!! Perhaps these deep repositories should be used for arsenic. Anyone living near Tacoma, congratulations, you used to live near the worlds largest pile of arsenic compounds, you might like to check how it is these days.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 18):
There is no discernible effect below 50 Rem -- I think that's 0.5 milliservierts in the newer units. Nothing.

Somewhere, there is a study that suggests that very low radiation exposure is associated with higher incidence of cancers compared with levels still a small fraction of the current limit.


User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8552 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2414 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 16):
Nuclear power is by a long shot the safest form of energy production right now, at least until fission finally starts working

I think you mean until fusion finally starts working , currently nuclear power is based on fission



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 20):
Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 16):
Nuclear power is by a long shot the safest form of energy production right now, at least until fission finally starts working

I think you mean until fusion finally starts working , currently nuclear power is based on fission

Fusion is still the wet dream of techno-types. When I started in the nuclear biz 30+ years ago, it was considered to be 20-30 years off. It's still about there, or maybe longer. There are still large problems to solve, and, contrary to popular belief, it will not be totally clean -- the containment itself will become activated by neutron leakage from the plasma, and so you'll have a disposal issue again.

Granted it wouldn't be as hot as fresh exit fuel from a fission reactor -- very few things are. But the decay curve is steep enough with CANDU fuel, for example, that with fresh exit fuel you'd get a lethal dose in about 2 minutes standing about a metre away. After one year, the time ramps up to about 5 hours. Mind you the heat flux would likely get you first - each bundle is giving off on average around 600 kW of heat when it exists the reactor. Centre bundles are about 1 MW.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2408 times:

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 21):
Granted it wouldn't be as hot as fresh exit fuel from a fission reactor -- very few things are. But the decay curve is steep enough with CANDU fuel, for example, that with fresh exit fuel you'd get a lethal dose in about 2 minutes standing about a metre away. After one year, the time ramps up to about 5 hours. Mind you the heat flux would likely get you first - each bundle is giving off on average around 600 kW of heat when it exists the reactor. Centre bundles are about 1 MW.

Interesting real data. Should be more of it.  Smile

Yes, do let me know when fusion becomes practicable apart from in an H-bomb. Best send the message to a cloud or earth the Email, cos few of us will be around if it happens. As I have said before, if you cannot manage energy transfer at about 3000deg K for magnetohydrodynamics, how are you going to manage it at a couple of million K?


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2390 times:

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 17):
Almost fell out of my chair with this one. Since when has the warming planet killed anyone. The Earth has been warming for 10,000 years and we and the rest of the life on the planet have done OK. The seas have also been rising since the end of the last Ice Age. No new news hear. Just more liberal propaganda. And pay us your carbon tax

Sorry? Even if you don't count global warming my statement is true. Coal power kills people every day.


User currently offlineWorkFlyer From New Zealand, joined Dec 2006, 203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2363 times:

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 17):
Almost fell out of my chair with this one. Since when has the warming planet killed anyone. The Earth has been warming for 10,000 years and we and the rest of the life on the planet have done OK. The seas have also been rising since the end of the last Ice Age. No new news hear. Just more liberal propaganda. And pay us your carbon tax

Wingnut, I think Flighty was referring to the effects of coal fired powerstations on local populations. The emissions from these stations create significant pollutants in the atmosphere which lead to severe respiratory illness in many people. particularly susceptible are young children and the elderly also those with conditions such as asthma. Also the level of metals being released into the atmosphere are high with some types of coal, particularly mercury.

Pollution for the burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to premature death amongst populations in industrialised nations globally every year. Also becoming a problem with developing nations too.

Back to Uranium, if they could solve the waste issue, I think nuclear power is a good option to consider, though here in NZ, not practical due to cost and the alternative, cheaper sources available


25 Post contains images Baroque : Yes, we keep on sending you guys OUR rain. We are working on sucking the water out before it gets to you. Watch out for dry days when we succeed in t
26 WorkFlyer : Believe me Baroque, after this past winter I can safely say you can keep some of "your" rain. A very wet winter it was indeed. Good to see your dams a
27 CupraIbiza : Why dont we do what the Chinese are doing. I see them using very large cannons to blast something in the air to provoke rain. My dad regails me of a
28 Baroque : Since those storms early in winter, not much. Warragamba has stabilized at just over 50%. The Vic dams are in worse shape, and the Snowy dams are a d
29 Pilotdude09 : Why doesnt all the other major cities do what Perths doing and building several De Sal plants, yes it may be expensive but it has no impact on the env
30 Zkpilot : Whilst I agree with you that desal is useful and a good source of water, saying that it has no impact on the environment is like saying MacDonalds is
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Does Iran Deserve Nuclear Power And Weapons? posted Wed Oct 20 2004 15:08:15 by Greaser
Steam Leak at a Nuclear Power Plant In Japan Kills 4 posted Tue Aug 10 2004 05:59:34 by DfwRevolution
Temp In Australia/NZ During Jun (North.Hemisphere) posted Wed Feb 25 2004 00:31:20 by Notar520AC
1980's In Music And Images posted Thu Aug 9 2007 07:33:30 by RootsAir
Lockers In Oslo And Glasgow posted Fri Jun 29 2007 05:26:45 by Swiftski
Australia and what to do there. posted Fri Jun 29 2007 02:32:28 by Jycarlisle
New Car Models About To Be Released In Australia posted Tue Jun 12 2007 16:59:40 by 'Longreach'
Luckiest Guy Of The Day Lives In Australia posted Sun May 20 2007 23:38:14 by Arniepie
Topless Carwash Cleared To Open In Australia posted Fri May 4 2007 17:21:49 by Jimyvr
I'm Falling In Love And I Hate It posted Tue Apr 17 2007 23:35:39 by Rolfen