SA Footy

All this recent talk on Co2 emissions, should we look at Nuclear power?

Yes, recent meltdowns with Chernoybl and fukishima, will turn peoples heads but

Chernoybl was the cause of human error, schedule power downs for maintenance, was done by under trained techs, this caused the explosion

Fukishima was a cause of mother nature, tsunami came over the ocean walls built to prevent it, which caused the backup deisel generators to fail, which lead to the reactors over heating, then the explosion

but these things "could have been prevented", or is Nuclear energy not in human control ever?

Benefits - 0% pollution into the atmosphere as we are told, clean energy?
Issues - Meltdown, radiation leak which leads to contamination

There were all sorts of safety issues with nuclear power before Fukushima disaster.

Yes there was, but due to mother nature, it caused the meltdown. No one forsees mother nature and what it can do.

This guy would beg to differ

yes the simpsons series doesnt help the nuclear power positive much really, but considering the USA has 104 Nuclear power plants, then they rely on it some what

Bully wrote:Yes there was, but due to mother nature, it caused the meltdown. No one forsees mother nature and what it can do.

I haven't heard the latest consensus, so you could be right, but last I heard they were saying that if the plant had been maintained properly the back-ups would not have failed.

I know I will get dumped on over this but what the hell. I firmly agree we should have nuclear power stations. We have an infinite supply of raw fuel (is it called yellow cake, or maybe a chip butty) and so once the capital cost has been depreciated over several years then our power bills would be cheap which would give manufacturing a healthy leg up.
Base load power can't be delivered by current technologies in wind, solar and wave motion. I don't think so anyway.
Remove the hysteria from the Greens and other loons and it is a sound source of electricity.

therisingblues wrote:

Bully wrote:Yes there was, but due to mother nature, it caused the meltdown. No one forsees mother nature and what it can do.

I haven't heard the latest consensus, so you could be right, but last I heard they were saying that if the plant had been maintained properly the back-ups would not have failed.

just watched the 2 year anniversary on foxtel doco. The sea walls that were built when the plant was built were built to a height to prevent a 17 foot tsunami wave. The earth quake on the day this tsunami was caused, the tsunami was three times the height of the ocean wall. The sea water poored into the power plant, and flooded the backup diesel generators which are there to power the cooling for the reactors. These failed, they resorted to running out into the car parks of the power plant, and ripped car batteries out of cars and tried to use them for power.

Footy Chick wrote:This guy would beg to differ

Shelbyville Power plant owner - "just do what you did before"
Homer - " Okkayy.Eniy, meany, miny,moe, catch a tiger by the toe, if he hollows let him go, einy meany miny moe "

"thank you homer, for saving us from a meltdown, WITH THAT IDIOTIC RYME. Do you even know which button you pushed? "

Homer - "yeah, moe"?

Sky Pilot wrote:I know I will get dumped on over this but what the hell. I firmly agree we should have nuclear power stations. We have an infinite supply of raw fuel (is it called yellow cake, or maybe a chip butty) and so once the capital cost has been depreciated over several years then our power bills would be cheap which would give manufacturing a healthy leg up.
Base load power can't be delivered by current technologies in wind, solar and wave motion. I don't think so anyway.
Remove the hysteria from the Greens and other loons and it is a sound source of electricity.

Do not forget FISH will love you as you are not polluting the planet as much as our coal options.

Yes absolutely.

We should also have a few nuclear weapons too.

Its just funny that when a polly brings up the idea of Nuclear power, people run scared. Or none of the pollys are game enough to say "i will build a Nuclear power plant" as the public out cry or rage would be massive

Alaska wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:I know I will get dumped on over this but what the hell. I firmly agree we should have nuclear power stations. We have an infinite supply of raw fuel (is it called yellow cake, or maybe a chip butty) and so once the capital cost has been depreciated over several years then our power bills would be cheap which would give manufacturing a healthy leg up.
Base load power can't be delivered by current technologies in wind, solar and wave motion. I don't think so anyway.
Remove the hysteria from the Greens and other loons and it is a sound source of electricity.

Do not forget FISH will love you as you are not polluting the planet as much as our coal options.

Oh he would have issues with disposal of the spent fuel rods and other stuff that needs dropping down a mine shaft and filled with concrete

Sky Pilot wrote:

Alaska wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:I know I will get dumped on over this but what the hell. I firmly agree we should have nuclear power stations. We have an infinite supply of raw fuel (is it called yellow cake, or maybe a chip butty) and so once the capital cost has been depreciated over several years then our power bills would be cheap which would give manufacturing a healthy leg up.
Base load power can't be delivered by current technologies in wind, solar and wave motion. I don't think so anyway.
Remove the hysteria from the Greens and other loons and it is a sound source of electricity.

Do not forget FISH will love you as you are not polluting the planet as much as our coal options.

Oh he would have issues with disposal of the spent fuel rods and other stuff that needs dropping down a mine shaft and filled with concrete

Well I can tell you stories about that........It has been done in suburban Adelaide!
And we have plenty of holes over 300m deep across the state so what is the problem?
SA for Nuclear leader status..............because we are not getting the traction in the other areas..................just needs political guts!

Not economically viable. Much of Europe is phasing out nuclear energy because of its history of poor economic performance.

It's a redundant energy source that will be irrelevant in a decade (if not already).

YES! South Australia could become very wealthy if we sold our Uranium. We might as well sell it, it's gonna get taken from us if we don't!

Sky Pilot wrote:I know I will get dumped on over this but what the hell. I firmly agree we should have nuclear power stations. We have an infinite supply of raw fuel (is it called yellow cake, or maybe a chip butty) and so once the capital cost has been depreciated over several years then our power bills would be cheap which would give manufacturing a healthy leg up.
Base load power can't be delivered by current technologies in wind, solar and wave motion. I don't think so anyway.
Remove the hysteria from the Greens and other loons and it is a sound source of electricity.

You were doing so well until that final comment.
You want me to dump on you for it?
As someone who's surviving day to day in a highly infected radioactive nation I think I am somewhat qualified to answer.
We own a Geiger counter, never thought I'd need one of those bastards but hey I don't live in a nuclear free zone like you do. I am doing all I can to get out of here and the idea of just abandoning our customers and business has come up many times. Many of our friends ate jealous simply because we have a country to run to, the vast majority here cannot run.
The Japanese government has done all it can to quell hysteria and protect those industries directly affected by the disaster. For example the dairy industry: cows eat alot of grass and there are alot of cows in the Fukushima area, to protect farmers from a fearful public not wishing to buy radioactive milk, the government allowed cows from the area to be spread across the nation. Now cows from everywhere are potentially lethal. Make sense? Labeling practices have also been relaxed, milk that was once labelled Fukushima can now legally be labelled Kumamoto, the area least affected by radiation. Make sense?
Radioactve garbage from Fukushima is burnt across the nation to share the burden, pissy little local goverents eager for a payoff gladly allow waste to be burnt in their local area while claiming to their local constituents that they're helping the nation, if people find out.
Everything I buy for my family is checked for it's origins, even then we know it'll have higher than normal infection if it's from within japan. The least we can do is buy safer products, nothing is completely safe.
We spend every day dodging potential sources of high radiation. We've seen the documentaries on Chernobyl, all these years on. Shocking! You tube it!
In years to come there'll be documentaries on Fukushima and surrounding areas. I pray to God Kyushu will not be featured.
Remember, when they started these reactors they were touted as being safe, made by good companies etc. Truth is as time goes on people get slack and complacent and the government in power may not have the priorities of those that went before. This is what has happened in Japan, and before Fukushima there were grave fears by many in the know about safety standards at those plants. I read about one guy who quit working in protest about how slack safety was.
I used to be a firm believer in nuclear power, for the reasons you stated in your post, I think you'll find most greens love the idea. But having lived it and studied it for 2 years I am definitely anti nuke.

This stuff. Safe and plentiful. Power a house for life with what you can hold in the palm of your hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

therisingblues wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:I know I will get dumped on over this but what the hell. I firmly agree we should have nuclear power stations. We have an infinite supply of raw fuel (is it called yellow cake, or maybe a chip butty) and so once the capital cost has been depreciated over several years then our power bills would be cheap which would give manufacturing a healthy leg up.
Base load power can't be delivered by current technologies in wind, solar and wave motion. I don't think so anyway.
Remove the hysteria from the Greens and other loons and it is a sound source of electricity.

You were doing so well until that final comment.
You want me to dump on you for it?
As someone who's surviving day to day in a highly infected radioactive nation I think I am somewhat qualified to answer.
We own a Geiger counter, never thought I'd need one of those bastards but hey I don't live in a nuclear free zone like you do. I am doing all I can to get out of here and the idea of just abandoning our customers and business has come up many times. Many of our friends ate jealous simply because we have a country to run to, the vast majority here cannot run.
The Japanese government has done all it can to quell hysteria and protect those industries directly affected by the disaster. For example the dairy industry: cows eat alot of grass and there are alot of cows in the Fukushima area, to protect farmers from a fearful public not wishing to buy radioactive milk, the government allowed cows from the area to be spread across the nation. Now cows from everywhere are potentially lethal. Make sense? Labeling practices have also been relaxed, milk that was once labelled Fukushima can now legally be labelled Kumamoto, the area least affected by radiation. Make sense?
Radioactve garbage from Fukushima is burnt across the nation to share the burden, pissy little local goverents eager for a payoff gladly allow waste to be burnt in their local area while claiming to their local constituents that they're helping the nation, if people find out.
Everything I buy for my family is checked for it's origins, even then we know it'll have higher than normal infection if it's from within japan. The least we can do is buy safer products, nothing is completely safe.
We spend every day dodging potential sources of high radiation. We've seen the documentaries on Chernobyl, all these years on. Shocking! You tube it!
In years to come there'll be documentaries on Fukushima and surrounding areas. I pray to God Kyushu will not be featured.
Remember, when they started these reactors they were touted as being safe, made by good companies etc. Truth is as time goes on people get slack and complacent and the government in power may not have the priorities of those that went before. This is what has happened in Japan, and before Fukushima there were grave fears by many in the know about safety standards at those plants. I read about one guy who quit working in protest about how slack safety was.
I used to be a firm believer in nuclear power, for the reasons you stated in your post, I think you'll find most greens love the idea. But having lived it and studied it for 2 years I am definitely anti nuke.

Well I can't add anything constructive to that comment.

Yes, but it was due to a natural disaster which caused the meltdown, not human error this time

Chernoybl was human error, fukishima was not. Yes, the backup diesel generators should have been built in a higher location, but when the plant was built, it was designed to withstand tsunamis of 17 foot , but this tsunami was 3 times the size of it.SO yes,bad planning was human error i guess

During the doco on foxtel about the fukishima nuclear plant, they said japan had a major tsunami in 869, and scientist found evidence of salt water 20kms in from the shore line. So the builders of the plant turned a blind eye to this when planning was made and final locations, or didnt know about the previous major tsunami.

IF there is a meltdown, its a major issue, but these "could have been prevented"