Uranium has had its time, I don't trust western power,verve,synergy to maintain a nuclear power plant in aus,
They can't look after the coal plants properly or even the grid or poles etc etc.
The future will be thorium it breaks down to usable items for cancer treatment radiation therapy etc etc.
A golf ball size of thorium can power a city the size of Sydney for years (about ten from memory) yes it's still nuclear however less waste and when technology/mining catch up it will be the gold/lithium/uranium boom of the next century.
Space travel will be possible over vast distance due to its stability and half life.
I've said too much......,
I am pretty well against nuclear fission. Purely on commercial grounds it makes no economic sense. Accounting for the true cost of power is really difficult. How on earth can you account properlly for thousands of years of future storage and security costs? No one even has an acceptable plan to store the stuff or deal with old sites like savanah river in the us, let alne an acceptable costing for for actually doing it. France has one of the biggest proportions of nuclear power in its power mix and claims it is cheap power, but who knows how much the military subsidises it by paying for or doing reprocessing for free to get the plutonium they want. We will never know. Some current numbers indicate wind power in the right location has the lowest cost per power unit compared to anything. Why wouldnt it, cheap to build generating capacity, low mainteance costs and free fuel. A good mate of mine came up with a saying that silicon always wins. Its only a matter of time before solar pv becomes the cheapest power, no moving parts, long life, low or no maintenance, and very low distribution costs as it can be distributed generating. Currently natural gas is cheap power because the oil indus try discovered fracking and fracked every site they could and now we h a ve over supply but one day it will run out but probably global warming will stop fossil fuels first or solar and wind will keep growing at 20% more installed capacity year on year and will make fossil fuels and nuclear totally uneconomic. It wont happen next year but it will happen. Every year wind turbines are getting bigger and cheaper and are being put in better locatons. Every year solar pv gets more efficient and cheaper and manufacturing capacity increases. Meanwhile nuclear gets more regulated and expensive. Every year oil and gas reserves are reducing even though they find more the total amount on earth is reducing. My money is on that great big nuclear fusion power plant we all rely on, the sun. We have the ability to collect as much power from it as we want, for just the cost of building a wind turbine, a solar cell or a hydro dam, or riging up our sail and going for a 30knot run.
ww7.collectivelyconscious.net****ushima-nuclear-holocaust-that-are-almost-too-horrifying-to-believe/
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..cisco said..
The CSIRO ran a pilot program nearly 40 years ago of which the criteria was:-
1. It had to be an all mod con stand alone home with an average family living in it for a year and located in Canberra.
2. It had to be off the power grid for the whole of that year.
A shed in the back yard contained a generator that would automaticly start up if the battery levels went below a certain point.
We are talking about Canberra, a place not noted for it's sunshine and we are talking about the technology 40 years ago.
The household ran for the full 12 months without the generator kicking in.
This experiment was documented and filmed by ABC TV and I watched it.
Embarrassing Questions:-
1. What happened to the data?
2. Why was it not acted upon back then, as in applying the technology in the general population?
3. Why is any stand alone household in Australia still on the power grid?
The Unspoken Answer:-
There are too many vested interests involved who would lose $$$$$$$$$$$$$ if the truth were to be known and acted upon.
Nuclear power is inevitable but it is only a stop gap while cold fusion and other technologies are developed to fruition.
what was it...?
What was what??
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
^^ lol yes indeed
But c'mon - the power source was..?
Er, solar.....
You are correct ian k but also wrong,
Brilliant maths but 74% of energy usage in aus is through industry ie pilbarra and gas plants mines etc.
You are fully correct in regards to the maths however Sydney would be at most 10% of energy usage or 2.7kg (roughly)
Thorium is heavy heavy stuff so whilst a golf ball is not big enough a bowling ball is too big.
Somewhere between the two, however a lot lot less than uranium less than 5% with a lot less waste out of that
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
Also, how much of that thorium gets converted from matter to energy? 1 neutron or 2 out of a fissile nucleus weighing in at 232 ?
You can probably multiply your answer above by a factor of 100
You don't actually lose a neutron, it's just that the reassembled nuclei and left overs weigh less than the starting products. You can come up with the same answer as E=mC^2 by looking at the potential energy change associated with the nuclear forces in the rearranged nuclei. Holding repelling, positively charged protons tightly together in a nucleus packs a lot of potential energy. The famous equation is just an alternative way of tracking energy, a loaded mouse trap weighs more than a sprung one, a charged battery weighs more than a flat one. But we don't use the E = mC^2 method to determine the charge in a battery because the weight change is impossibly small to measure.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy
According to wikipedia, you start by absorbing a neutron to get U233, which then goes through decay. If I remember correctly, it is the necessity of throwing in that neutron that makes the Th reactor easy to turn off.
My point remains. Only a tiny fraction of mass gets converted to energy.
There is always a better way. Here it is with new and improved paragraphs.
I am pro Nuclear in some ways, I like the nuclear fusion that happens every day on the sun. I dont like the nuclear fission that happens in nuclear bombs and I am not particularly happy about the nuclear decay of strontium 90 that happens in my bones because I was born post the age of atmospheric nuclear testing, but hopefully and probably it wont, have a measurable effect on me.
Statistically the most dangerous thing I or any of us do each day (apart from live, that seems pretty dangerous, always ends up in death one day) is probably drive our car. But we are all happy with that, partly because psychologically we feel in control or are familiar with it, the last time our car broke down or didnt start or we crashed into another car in the car park, we were a bit shaken, walked away from it and were psychologically trained a bit more to accept that cars do go wrong, but hey I got away with it and the up side outweighs the downside.
Airplanes have a greater fear factor but are statistically much safer than cars (ok, a modern airliner, not an old bug smasher) but pretty much all we hear about with airplanes is the last time a few hundred poor souls burnt when one crashed or got blown up by a missile. We never hear about the time one of the quadruple redundant flight control computers dropped out and the others carried on or even if the jet engine almost caught fire, but hey the fire suppression worked and the flight carried on and landed on time and no one but the flight crew knew about it because it all worked out OK, and three hundred poor souls have missed out on their psychological training, hey this flying thing is a bit dangerous, but hey the last time it nearly caught fire, well the safety systems kicked in and I got away with it, hey the up side of flying is pretty good, think I will stick with it.
Nuclear is in an even worse boat. No one (or no one I know) lies in bed all nice and warm under their electric blanket going hey the cooling pump on the states nuclear reactor down at the plant 600 miles away failed, but no drama, the second back up kicked in OK and now the maintenance procedure has been amended again to include something that no one thought was possible, this nuclear thing could be a bit dangerous, but hey the blanket is nice and warm, I got away with it and feel all right with my choice.
What sticks in peoples minds is 2 nuclear bombs detonated over cities killing about 100, 000 people in a few seconds and pictures on TV of a whole city being evacuated because some tests weren't done properly, and another city being evacuated because the risk assessment and failure modes and effects analysis was junk and some genius put the electrical control box for the flood control back up pumps below water level and the sea wall was too low because they tried to save a few bucks.
These kinds of problems are industry wide (not just nuclear, in almost every big industry, cars, aircraft, trains, coal power, hospitals, whatever), its complex, at the end of the day engineers and other professionals are trying to make economic and safety decisions that cost millions of dollars to implement and cost billions of dollars if the low probability events occur. The problem with nuclear is that the bad events are rare, but they are big and expensive and that affects all of the risk analysis, which gets rightfully biased to be ultra conservative and that increases costs, to the point that most projects dont get the tick, usually because they are not financially viable.
Its probably not going to change. Get over it. Uranium or Plutonium fission is damn expensive and basically not financially viable because to get the risk to a level that is acceptable to the community is usually too expensive unless its subsidised by the military or government.
Thorium fission might have the same problems. Nuclear fusion in power plants might turn out OK but has years to go.
In the meantime we are stuck with fossil fuels and the existing renewables. Of all the currently available technology and forseeable technology, the ones with the best legs that will have the biggest impact in order are: increased efficiency of power consumers (increased insulation, LED/Fluoro lights, improved industrial processes and waste heat reclamation, better trains, cars and ships), increased efficiency of fossil fuel based generation, wind, solar (and do the last remaining hydro, although most of that wont happen on environmental grounds), tidal, geothermal, wave
. If you want to save the planet, start at home, insulate your house or learn to put on more clothes or shorts and turn off the aircon or heater, put in efficient lighting or even better, learn to do things in the day light and sleep at night, recycle any aluminium you use, recycle your steel, minimise your use of concrete, get an efficient car. Get solar hot water and take shorter showers. Dont drink bottled water. Eat more fresh plants and less processed or cold stored food. Dont consume. Dont fly, use the internet. Sell your car and walk or catch the train or bus. Get a fixie. Turn into a damn hipster. But seriously do all that stuff before you think about putting on solar cells or a wind turbine in your back yard or buying an electric car or demanding a nuclear power plant for expensive power.
BTW I dont do much of that stuff, I consume and enjoy it, but I do think about things before I do them, yes I drive a 6 cylinder SUV, but its not a V8, a little 4 cylinder wouldnt suit what I do with it and I do only have a two minute drive to work. rant = off.
Select to expand quotePiv said..
There is always a better way. I am pro Nuclear in some ways, I like the nuclear fusion that happens every day on the sun. I dont like the nuclear fission that happens in nuclear bombs and I am not particularly happy about the nuclear decay of strontium 90 that happens in my bones because I was born post the age of atmospheric nuclear testing, but hopefully and probably it wont, have a measurable effect on me. Statistically the most dangerous thing I or any of us do each day (apart from live, that seems pretty dangerous, always ends up in death one day) is probably drive our car. But we are all happy with that, partly because psychologically we feel in control or are familiar with it, the last time our car broke down or didnt start or we crashed into another car in the car park, we were a bit shaken, walked away from it and were psychologically trained a bit more to accept that cars do go wrong, but hey I got away with it and the up side outweighs the downside. Airplanes have a greater fear factor but are statistically much safer than cars (ok, a modern airliner, not an old bug smasher) but pretty much all we hear about with airplanes is the last time a few hundred poor souls burnt when one crashed or got blown up by a missile. We never hear about the time one of the quadruple redundant flight control computers dropped out and the others carried on or even if the jet engine almost caught fire, but hey the fire suppression worked and the flight carried on and landed on time and no one but the flight crew knew about it because it all worked out OK, and three hundred poor souls have missed out on their psychological training, hey this flying thing is a bit dangerous, but hey the last time it nearly caught fire, well the safety systems kicked in and I got away with it, hey the up side of flying is pretty good, think I will stick with it. Nuclear is in an even worse boat. No one (or no one I know) lies in bed all nice and warm under their electric blanket going hey the cooling pump on the states nuclear reactor down at the plant 600 miles away failed, but no drama, the second back up kicked in OK and now the maintenance procedure has been amended again to include something that no one thought was possible, this nuclear thing could be a bit dangerous, but hey the blanket is nice and warm, I got away with it and feel all right with my choice. What sticks in peoples minds is 2 nuclear bombs detonated over cities killing about 100, 000 people in a few seconds and pictures on TV of a whole city being evacuated because some tests weren't done properly, and another city being evacuated because the risk assessment and failure modes and effects analysis was junk and some genius put the electrical control box for the flood control back up pumps below water level and the sea wall was too low because they tried to save a few bucks. These kinds of problems are industry wide (not just nuclear, in almost every big industry, cars, aircraft, trains, coal power, hospitals, whatever), its complex, at the end of the day engineers and other professionals are trying to make economic and safety decisions that cost millions of dollars to implement and cost billions of dollars if the low probability events occur. The problem with nuclear is that the bad events are rare, but they are big and expensive and that affects all of the risk analysis, which gets rightfully biased to be ultra conservative and that increases costs, to the point that most projects dont get the tick, usually because they are not financially viable. Its probably not going to change. Get over it. Uranium or Plutonium fission is damn expensive and basically not financially viable because to get the risk to a level that is acceptable to the community is usually too expensive unless its subsidised by the military or government. Thorium fission might have the same problems. Nuclear fusion in power plants might turn out OK but has years to go. In the meantime we are stuck with fossil fuels and the existing renewables. Of all the currently available technology and forseeable technology, the ones with the best legs that will have the biggest impact in order are: increased efficiency of power consumers (increased insulation, LED/Fluoro lights, improved industrial processes and waste heat reclamation, better trains, cars and ships), increased efficiency of fossil fuel based generation, wind, solar (and do the last remaining hydro, although most of that wont happen on environmental grounds), tidal, geothermal, wave. If you want to save the planet, start at home, insulate your house or learn to put on more clothes or shorts and turn off the aircon or heater, put in efficient lighting or even better, learn to do things in the day light and sleep at night, recycle any aluminium you use, recycle your steel, minimise your use of concrete, get an efficient car. Get solar hot water and take shorter showers. Dont drink bottled water. Eat more fresh plants and less processed or cold stored food. Dont consume. Dont fly, use the internet. Sell your car and walk or catch the train or bus. Get a fixie. Turn into a damn hipster. But seriously do all that stuff before you think about putting on solar cells or a wind turbine in your back yard or buying an electric car or demanding a nuclear power plant for expensive power. BTW I dont do much of that stuff, I consume and enjoy it, but I do think about things before I do them, yes I drive a 6 cylinder SUV, but its not a V8, a little 4 cylinder wouldnt suit what I do with it and I do only have a two minute drive to work. rant = off.
oh my goodness , that paragraph really needs to be nuked !!! you win the paragraph war !! 
Edited with new and improved paragraphs above. But it has still got the long sentences. Its not an english test, its my rant. Didnt think anyone would read my drivel.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said...
A website run by an anti-nuclear group?
Yes, an anti-nuclear group website. Who else do expect will tell the other side of the story, the pro-nuclear group?? As I said, their work is accompanied by citations, authors, links. Don't focus on the one story, I put that up to show you that things can go wrong with storage, not that they will.
Have a good look around, there's a lot in there you won't be getting from the more obvious sources.
I just read about this aussie world record and I thought I'd post it back here:
newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/milestone-solar-cell-efficiency-unsw-engineers
A new solar cell configuration developed by engineers at the University of New South Wales has pushed sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiency to 34.5% – establishing a new world record for unfocused sunlight and nudging closer to the theoretical limits for such a device.
The record was set by... UNSW’s Australian Centre for Advanced Photovoltaics,...The new UNSW result, confirmed by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory, is almost 44% better than the previous record ...
Extracting more energy from every beam of sunlight is critical to reducing the cost of electricity generated by solar cells as it lowers the investment needed, and delivering payback faster.”...
.“So things are moving faster in solar cell efficiency than many experts expected, and that’s good news for solar energy,” he added. “But we must maintain the pace of photovoltaic research in Australia to ensure that we not only build on such tremendous results, but continue to bring benefits back to Australia.”
Australia’s research in photovoltaics has already generated flow-on benefits of more than $8 billion to the country, Green said. Gains in efficiency alone, made possible by UNSW’s PERC cells, are forecast to save $750 million in domestic electricity generation in the next decade.
“Australia already punches above its weight in solar R&D and is recognised as a world leader in solar innovation,” Frischknecht said. “These early stage foundations are increasingly making it possible for Australia to return solar dividends here at home and in export markets – and there’s no reason to believe the same results can’t be achieved with this record-breaking technology.”
I'll go for (a). Since the mutual gravitation is reduced, but velocity remains the same Earth drifts away from the Sun.
Which explains why solar PV drops off with time.
Select to expand quotePiv said..
Pretty sure the earth gets heavier from all the cosmic dust that falls onto it.
but we sent some space junk into space too, some even left our solar system almost....and most likely we loose more water vapors and atmospheric air that we gain........then we don't know if aliens are not steeling our precious also pumping water , gold and dirt into their flying sources ...
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..
To change time than gravity must be changed however it is only relative to what is measured, if the sun is 1/3 smaller now than 500000 years ago it would only be able to be measured against what we know,
indeed , it will be quite interesting to know, if smart ass could come now and tell us that in the times of dinosaurs :
a) Earth was 100 km closer to Sun (?)
b) Sun was 0.ooo1% bigger (?)For some this small changes in numbers seems to be negligible but I am almost 100% sure that for devices like our everyday GPS this changes are absolutely crucial.
What I mean that exiting exact GPS satellite system NOW and Million years ago will show completely different results.
