Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearchRegisterPM to admin Recent Rules Login  
 

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 
Send Topic Print
NUCLEAR POWER (Read 6934 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 11233
in front of a computer
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #105 - Jun 10th, 2008, 12:08pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Muso, I don't think geothermal involves the extraction of anything other than heat.
Back to top
 
 

Sometimes I wonder, "why is that frisbee getting bigger" .... and then it hits me.
View Profile WWW   IP Logged
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 4506
Rural Queensland Australia
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #106 - Jun 10th, 2008, 7:08pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
At least one of the batholiths where  geothermal projects are planned contains radioactive material. (That's what produces the heat)
Back to top
 
 

Disclaimer: The factual information contained herein may be detrimental to your erroneous preconceptions.
View Profile   IP Logged
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 4506
Rural Queensland Australia
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #107 - Jun 10th, 2008, 7:16pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Deathridesahorse wrote on Jun 10th, 2008, 12:03pm:
muso wrote on Jun 10th, 2008, 10:58am:
The geothermal projects  or Uranium mines could provide a good location for a nuclear waste dump. Put the waste underground along with the natural stuff that has a higher activity anyway. What's the problem with that?  


My problem with that idea is it supports an irresponsible industry desperate for a get-out-of-jail-free card and if democracy means a thing I will not vote for it!

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


In what way is it irresponsible? - and what makes you think you'll get to vote on it?  It just needs to go through the Environmental Impact Assessment.

People run around like headless chooks when you talk about radioactive material - probably because it's something they don't understand.   Human beings are naturally radioactive. Cadavers are exempt from the legislation governing radioactive waste, but radioactive waste with the same activity as you and me (very low I presume) is subject to extremely careful control.

Which kind of gamma radiation do you think is most harmful - natural or artificial?   Tongue
Back to top
 
 

Disclaimer: The factual information contained herein may be detrimental to your erroneous preconceptions.
View Profile   IP Logged
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 11233
in front of a computer
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #108 - Jun 10th, 2008, 8:39pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
At least one of the batholiths where  geothermal projects are planned contains radioactive material. (That's what produces the heat)

But that doesn't mean it is a good place to store radioactive material which we produce. Digging a 4km pipe down to pump water is not that same as digging a 4km deep mineshaft and excavating. By digging the hole, you would be bringing more radioactive material to the surface.
Back to top
 
 

Sometimes I wonder, "why is that frisbee getting bigger" .... and then it hits me.
View Profile WWW   IP Logged
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 905

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #109 - Jun 10th, 2008, 8:51pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Actually fission has been know to occur naturally underground in uranium deposits:

http://www.ans.org/pi/np/oklo/

Oklo's Natural Fission Reactors

More than 1.5 billion years ago (that's more than 1,500 million years) a nuclear fission reaction took place in an underground uranium deposit in Oklo, Gabon, Africa.  The fission reaction continued - off and on - for hundreds of thousands of years.  Eventually, the reactor shut down.

While it was active, the natural reactor generated fission products (wastes) very similar to those produced when fission occurs in modern nuclear reactors at power plants.

When evidence of the Oklo reactor was discovered in 1972, the fission products had been lying in Mother Nature's repository for about a billion years (that's 1,000 million years).  In fact, it was studies of the fission products found in the uranium mine which showed that a natural reactor had operated there.

The Oklo reactor provided an interesting natural analog for waste management.  Studying what happened to the fission products in the reactor has provided valuable insight into the requirements for a long-term waste repository.

Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
Senexx
Junior Member
**
Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74
Australia
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #110 - Dec 22nd, 2009, 12:24pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
I have no particular objection to nuclear technologies being used in conjunction with other renewables.

Amidst the nuclear power debate mid 2007 I wrote (and more recently reposted in July):

Quote:
The Canadian Deuterium Uranium reactor type is probably the best choice if Australia is to pursue a nuclear future.

This type of reactor and generating facility has a projected service life of over 60 years which means including establishment cost, commissioning cost, maintenance cost and decommissioning cost its projected wholesale power cost in current prices is $0.0356 au per kilowatt hour. The current NEMMCO wholesale purchase price is $0.115 au per kilowatt hour, as this is approximate to three times the cost commercial power generators will be attracted to this investment opportunity. It should be noted that the cost of power generation by Nuclear means in Canada is 0.0260 $per kWh but the industry is has greater development and infrastructure.

The CANDU 9 has a double valance enclosure around the reactor containment vessel and uniquely the heavy water moderator is also the medium for critical fission, as the moderator, its temperature, density and level in the reactor are controlling the process. A simple thermometric and pressure activated valve system make this reactor impossible to meltdown or suffer other catastrophic failure, excluding deliberate sabotage or attack. The double valance enclosure ensures that with the exception of specific military deep penetration ordinance it has a one point failure rating, thus minimizing the risk of nominal terrorist action. The fuel used in this reactor is un-enriched uranium but it is also capable of using transuranics as a partial source, thus allowing the reactor to continually recycle old fuel until full fission is completed, it also allows the use of plutonium and other wastes generated from external sources to be incorporated into the fuel.

The operating temperature of the CANDU 9 is 290 degrees Celsius, substantially below critical heat levels found in many other reactors. This has the desirable effect of extending metallurgical stability, eliminating the risk of burn through or containment failure and giving a high degree of flexibility to operational parameters.

The ability to recycle wastes and other transuranics such as plutonium is also a desirable feature, in many nations the partial fission caused by the use of Fast Breeder and similar reactors has produced a storage problem, it has also created the possibility of Nuclear Arms Proliferation, this reactor is a capable partial solution, weapons grade plutonium and other materials can be used in the fuel, this allows Australia for the first time to account for it uranium exports as the use of this material in these reactors would substantially minimize the chance of Australian Uranium becoming part of the weapons cycle.

This coupled with the technology of Synroc, to encapsulate only fully fissioned fuel wastes, wastes that will have a lesser radioactive emission than the original uranium ore in less than 1000 years. It is a primary fundamental that nuclear energy in Australia will be a closed fuel cycle, it will be safe and the need is temporary, but critical to our needs and transition to a non carbon energy cycle.

To facilitate this storage in safety for future generations is paramount, it must be stored in a manner that is both economic and safe. The first option is logically to store the wastes in an area that is geologically stable, is not environmentally sensitive and has a workforce skilled and aware of nuclear safety. The logical conclusion then is to store the nuclear wastes in a repository that has these conditions, the exhausted shafts and reaches of existing Uranium mines are such places. The use of these cavities is not only logical but ensures the fuel cycle is fully closed, as the storage of the wastes return them to their place of origin, into a sealed system, that is completely and irrevocably sealed once processing stops. It would also provide a secondary income stream for the mining operations, to facilitate greater safety and productivity.

http://senexx.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/nuclear-power/


Alternatively a Pebble-Bed Reactor would do.  Even Homer Simpson could run one of those safely.  And we have moved towards portable nuclear power now (click the image) and plenty of well nuanced information (before clicking) there as well.
Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW   IP Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 
Send Topic Print