Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Nuclear will 'combat climate change'
Volkodav    9/29/2009 4:18:05 AM
From correspondents in India | September 29, 2009 Article from: Agence France-Presse INDIA'S Prime Minister vowed that a massive increase in nuclear power generation over the next four decades would allow the booming country to reduce its impact on global warming. Manmohan Singh told an international atomic conference in New Delhi that the civilian nuclear supply agreement he signed with the United States last year had opened an era for safer, cleaner energy production. "There will be huge opportunities for the global nuclear industry to participate in the expansion of our nuclear energy program," he said, urging India "to think big" on the future energy needs of its 1.2 billion people. Singh announced that 470,000 megawatts of energy could come from Indian nuclear power stations by 2050 - a giant leap from just 4,120 megawatts currently produced by its 17 reactors. "This will sharply reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and will be a major contribution to global efforts to combat climate change," he said. An embargo on India's involvement in civilian nuclear exchanges - imposed in 1974 following a series of nuclear tests - was lifted in 2008 after long negotiations with the United States. The deal has sparked a race among major nuclear companies to secure contracts with the country, which sees increased power production as key to securing further development after 15 years of rapid economic growth. The Planning Commission of India estimates that about 600 million people - more than the entire population of the European Union and nearly half of all Indians - are not even on the national grid. Singh told delegates at the International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy that a number of agreements were in the pipeline and that he "looked forward to their full and effective implementation in the coming months and years." India currently relies on imports for about 70 per cent of its oil needs. __________________________________________________________________ Should we re-examine the nuclear option?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Aussiegunneragain       9/29/2009 8:36:29 AM

We might have to if there is a general global agreement on greenhouse gas reduction. The rest of the world is hardly going to tolerate us emitting at our current level and nuclear is the only stationary energy option that is both economically viable and clean at present.

 
Quote    Reply

FJV       9/29/2009 12:13:31 PM
It's in my opinion not proven or unproven that the climate change is not natural, but man made.
If the change is from natural causes using nuclear power will not change a thing.
 
Doesn't mean it's not a smart idea within reason *1) to avoid pollution.

1*) Maybe this is enough emphasis for the enviro nuts out there.
 

 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       9/30/2009 7:12:34 AM
While i am an ideological supporter of Nuclear Power, I'd suggest that we should spend more time, money and effort  exploring renewable options first.
 
Australia typically has allot of Sunshine; and, has allot of space.
 
These conditions place us in a unique position to utilize the power of Sun (solar), to a much greater extent than other nations.
 
There are a number of problems preventing wide spread use:
 
Here are a few
 
1. It is not available at night, making energy storage vital - this is difficult.
2. The area's in Australia with the most sun, are a long way from population centres (energy is lost in transmission)
3. large arrays of solar panels are need & Large solar stations become visual pollution.
4. Solar panels designed to generate electricity are still fairly expensive to produce
 
So before we run out and build Nuclear power plants & nuclear waste, perhaps we should spend the money it would cost to build the first two on research in the following area's
 
1) Improving the efficiency of solar panels
2) Improving energy storage mediums (fuel cells etc..)
3) Develop efficient energy transportation solutions ( reduce energy loss)
4) Investigate methods to mass produce solar panels/equipment cheaply
 
One major advancement in any of the fore mentioned areas could make a much bigger difference in the long term than simply jumping on the nuclear band wagon straight up.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/30/2009 4:10:57 PM
the principle problem for solar (and wind) is not so much about baseload reqs, its more about the fact that the more suitable resources are in areas where the energy transmission is subject to signal loss - and every km of infrastructure req'd to pump it costs approx $250k per.

even if the cost of connecting to the main user grid was lower, you still get signal loss.

its why china has huge problems in maintaining development - and its why they're still pumping out nukes and coal fired stations like free beer at a wharfies picnic.

storage and store forward are less of a problem.  the cost is in maintaining signal and sending it down the lone - its not the panels that are killing it economically
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       10/1/2009 5:11:55 AM
Maybe a fast breeder reactor at Muselbrook and a few other places with Power stations? I'm sure they'd think of something to use the Plutonium for.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/1/2009 5:25:04 AM
The US is working on mini reactors to power bases and portable reactors to power forward bases.
 
The other thing with Nuclear power stations is they pair very well with desal / water purification plants.
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       10/1/2009 6:16:55 AM

While i am an ideological supporter of Nuclear Power, I'd suggest that we should spend more time, money and effort  exploring renewable options first.

 

Australia typically has allot of Sunshine; and, has allot of space.

 

These conditions place us in a unique position to utilize the power of Sun (solar), to a much greater extent than other nations.

 

There are a number of problems preventing wide spread use:

 

Here are a few

 

1. It is not available at night, making energy storage vital - this is difficult.

2. The area's in Australia with the most sun, are a long way from population centres (energy is lost in transmission)

3. large arrays of solar panels are need & Large solar stations become visual pollution.

4. Solar panels designed to generate electricity are still fairly expensive to produce

 

So before we run out and build Nuclear power plants & nuclear waste, perhaps we should spend the money it would cost to build the first two on research in the following area's

 

1) Improving the efficiency of solar panels

2) Improving energy storage mediums (fuel cells etc..)

3) Develop efficient energy transportation solutions ( reduce energy loss)

4) Investigate methods to mass produce solar panels/equipment cheaply

 

One major advancement in any of the fore mentioned areas could make a much bigger difference in the long term than simply jumping on the nuclear band wagon straight up.



Average Solar Radiation (Insolation) Across the WorldInsolation Maphttp://f542.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f1970798%5fAPknvs4AAPIaSsQnmABupH2dFR0&pid=2&fid=Inbox&inline=1" width="500" height="283" />

Australia, as the developed country with the highest concerntrations of solar radiation should be leading the way in Solar Energy research/development & production.
---------
 
 
GF)
 
Hence Number 3:
3) Develop efficient energy transportation solutions ( reduce energy loss)
----
 
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/1/2009 7:53:37 AM


The other thing with Nuclear power stations is they pair very well with desal / water purification plants.

the Saudis and Israelis are regarded as the experts in this.  King Khalid University actually runs courses on water management and desal tech.



 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/1/2009 9:39:23 AM

the principle problem for solar (and wind) is not so much about baseload reqs, its more about the fact that the more suitable resources are in areas where the energy transmission is subject to signal loss - and every km of infrastructure req'd to pump it costs approx $250k per.
 
even if the cost of connecting to the main user grid was lower, you still get signal loss.

its why china has huge problems in maintaining development - and its why they're still pumping out nukes and coal fired stations like free beer at a wharfies picnic.
 
storage and store forward are less of a problem.  the cost is in maintaining signal and sending it down the lone - its not the panels that are killing it economically
I personally think grid connected solar and wind is largely a woftam without storage. In addition to GF's points about lossees and infrastructure costs, wind in particular requires all sorts of dicking around with forecasting and semi-scheduling to stop it destabilising the grid. I think the real future for it is in desal and in hydrogen production for transport purposes, if we ever get an economical hydrogen-powered vehicle.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics