Nuclear Power Stations - Yes or No

[Fiona]

A quick google indicates that the 40 year figure is correct for Reserves for Canada alone. At least I think that's what it says. Could you possibly be misremembering?

I could be. Just checked their website and found this:

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org....nd_uranium_reserves_secure_energy_factsheet_4


There is also a much more positive projection here:

http://www.worldenergy.org/publicat...nterim_update_2009/part_i_uranium/default.asp

but it is more difficult to find any actual projection

 

[Darat]

Thanks folks for the feedback on the uranium reserves, surprised there isn't more of a consensus especially given the number of governments that are looking at expansion of their energy input from nuclear power stations. You'd have thought it would be a key piece of data for making any decision.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Okay this is from the World Nuclear Association, so take it as you will:

Supply doesn't seem to be a problem.

If we compare apples to apples, existing nuclear power supplies and equipment are not a very enticing alternative to existing renewable energy sources. Counting cradle-to-grave reactor costs they aren't that cheap, and counting only the uranium we know we can set our hands on, if the world built ten times as many reactors as we now have the world would run out of uranium very quickly.

The Australian government had a committee look at them some years ago and the conclusion was that even though our uranium reserves are significant they aren't a long-term energy solution, and we are at least as blessed in terms of potential renewable energy sources as we are blessed in terms of fissionable molecules in our ores. So why go with the short-term nuclear solution with all its attendant problems, when we could put up solar panels, or wind farms, or wave power stations, or whatever? We could still be getting energy out of solar in three hundred years time, and we wouldn't be passing on a burden of nuclear waste to future generations to do it.

That's not mentioning the weapons proliferation issue.

Don't even mention fast breeders - they're disasters waiting to happen and they only exist because they're good for making weapons-grade material. They are not magical genies that transform nuclear waste into daffodils, or if they are nobody has demonstrated that it's a cost-effective energy solution.

Also comparing apples to apples, pie-in-the-sky nuclear reactor technology could solve all our problems at once and bring about Utopia, and pulling uranium out of sea water and whatnot is still at the pie-in-the-sky stage. Nobody's demonstrated that they can do it on a large scale cost-effectively. It's all "we did a pilot project, and if we conveniently assume large economies of scale, and don't show all our numbers, it looks wonderful!".

If we're allowed to appeal to science fiction, which is what the nuclear lobby's pie in the sky amounts to, renewable science fiction technologies could also save the world and bring about a glorious new age of energy too cheap to meter and all that.

 

[lionking]

Okay I take that as a no Kevin. If you think that the Australian government committee's decision was anything other than political you are kidding yourself.

So where is baseload power going to come from if not coal or gas fired power stations, or nuclear energy? You know wind and solar power will not do the job.

 

[arthwollipot]

Question 1: Yes. Although we still need to decide what to do with the waste that modern plants generate. My proposal is to pollute the universe. Blast it out of the solar system. There are still problems with that idea too, though.

Question 2: Lots and lots and lots of people are still frightened by the word "nuclear" - to the point where anything that is associated with the word is automatically bad by a priori definition. And that's because lots and lots and lots of people are idiots who don't know what they're talking about, and who form opinions without first becoming informed about the subject they're forming opinions about.

 

[Fiona]

People are frightened of nuclear Arth. I think they are right to be frightened. I have not seen any reasonable solution to the waste problem

Do you have one which is not science fiction?

 

[arthwollipot]

People are frightened of nuclear Arth. I think they are right to be frightened. I have not seen any reasonable solution to the waste problem

Do you have one which is not science fiction?

Nope. That doesn't mean that one doesn't exist though. I'm hardly an expert.

 

[lionking]

Nope. That doesn't mean that one doesn't exist though. I'm hardly an expert.

Bob Hawke had one in my opinion. Bury it very deeply in the most geologically stable, remote and unpopulated place in the world. The centre of Australia. Where the uranium came from in the first place. Naturally our government will not counternance such a logical solution.

 

[Darat]

People are frightened of nuclear Arth. I think they are right to be frightened. I have not seen any reasonable solution to the waste problem

Do you have one which is not science fiction?

What is wrong with the many proposed storage options?

 

[richardm]

What is wrong with the many proposed storage options?

I think the main issue with those is that most people think storage is a good idea, provided it's being stored Somewhere Else. The Yukka Mountain project seemed to have resolved that issue - or at least, ignored the residents - and much else besides, but I gather that's now been shelved. I'm not clear whether anyone else would be able to store waste there so it probably wouldn't help the rest of us much anyway.

 

[Fiona]

Time and change mainly, I think.

 

[lionking]

Jeez, I'd like to see a rational argument against a bloody big hole in the middle of Australia.

 

[quadraginta]

Jeez, I'd like to see a rational argument against a bloody big hole in the middle of Australia.

Like this one?

Traditional owners win McArthur River Mine case

Traditional owners from the Borroloola region are celebrating a Federal Court win to stop a river being diverted to allow the expansion of the McArthur River zinc mine.

 

[Self]

The problem is that there is 6.8e9 people on the planet all demanding energy. As an oil and gas engineer, I would like to eventually put myself out of business. I am working on producing methane out of coal seams, fairly clean as energy goes but a distant second to nuclear. From my simplistic reading on the subject, nuclear has to bear the scrutiny if not the brunt of life-cycle costs whereas oil and gas does not - at least until recently. That being said, I do not support the lifting of the moratorium on new uranium mines in Australia as a large portion of my portfolio is held in a Canadian uranium company CCO that has mines in Saskatchewan and no holdings in Australia.

 

[lionking]

You know what I mean quadriginta. I said a rational argument, not one based on where the rainbow serpent once had a crap.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Yes.

 

[quadraginta]

You know what I mean quadriginta. I said a rational argument, not one based on where the rainbow serpent once had a crap.

 

[Belz...]

To the OP: Yes.

I mean, France and Japan don't seem to have a problem with 'em. So why the hysteria ?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

To the OP: Yes.

I mean, France and Japan don't seem to have a problem with 'em. So why the hysteria ?

What do they do with their waste?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

While I don't have any real issues with nuclear power from a safety point of view I am starting to think that they aren't the answer. One reason for this is that their lack of flexibility doesn't really make them well suited to supporting electricity grids with high proportions of renewables and distributed generation - things which are no doubt the future of energy.