''Nuclear Power is the best alternative to Fossil Fuels''

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by CRTreeDude

You can't grow this fuel - and it is pretty rare too, much rarer than oil. Take a look on how many years we have of uranium left, it isn't much. It is possible that some new reactors would be finished, and have to be shut down because of Peak Uranium!

Pretty short sighted

Uranium is a ubiquitous element.
One difference between it and oil is the quantity required for energy production. And the relative disconnect between its cost and nuclear power generation.

[CRTreeDude]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Uranium is a ubiquitous element.
One difference between it and oil is the quantity required for energy production. And the relative disconnect between its cost and nuclear power generation.

Just did some reading, it appears you might be right with this. Also, it is possible they say to develop a breeder reactor that actually produces more than it uses, making it truly sustainable.

There are other issues, but at least we aren't just jumping from one unsustainable fuel to another.

One thing though I suspect, whenever an cheap energy source is developed, the consumption will quickly grow to consume it - no matter how much. Sort of like people and animals. If there is extra food - the population expands until there is no more. This to me is the argument to why whatever energy we use must be sustainable, otherwise, we will expand our usage to absorb it all at the rate of extraction, and face a die back when it runs out...

Much like now.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by CRTreeDude

Just did some reading, it appears you might be right with this. Also, it is possible they say to develop a breeder reactor that actually produces more than it uses, making it truly sustainable.

There are other issues, but at least we aren't just jumping from one unsustainable fuel to another.

One thing though I suspect, whenever an cheap energy source is developed, the consumption will quickly grow to consume it - no matter how much. Sort of like people and animals. If there is extra food - the population expands until there is no more. This to me is the argument to why whatever energy we use must be sustainable, otherwise, we will expand our usage to absorb it all at the rate of extraction, and face a die back when it runs out...

Much like now.

Appreciate your agreement on the first point.

Regardless of costs, if we ditch fossil generation or run out of resources nuclear would seem to be the only option.

Other than a few specific examples like Itaipu and the Three Gorges which depend on local topography, the contribution from renewables is marginal.

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by CRTreeDude

Just did some reading, it appears you might be right with this. Also, it is possible they say to develop a breeder reactor that actually produces more than it uses, making it truly sustainable.

There are other issues, but at least we aren't just jumping from one unsustainable fuel to another.

One thing though I suspect, whenever an cheap energy source is developed, the consumption will quickly grow to consume it - no matter how much. Sort of like people and animals. If there is extra food - the population expands until there is no more. This to me is the argument to why whatever energy we use must be sustainable, otherwise, we will expand our usage to absorb it all at the rate of extraction, and face a die back when it runs out...

Much like now.

...Jevons paradox?!?

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Appreciate your agreement on the first point.

Regardless of costs, if we ditch fossil generation or run out of resources nuclear would seem to be the only option.

Other than a few specific examples like Itaipu and the Three Gorges which depend on local topography, the contribution from renewables is marginal.

Nuclear Power is inhibited by proliferation concerns... it's an external cost that cannot be denied!

....the contribution from Renewables just got that bit bigger by extension!

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

Nuclear Power is inhibited by proliferation concerns... it's an external cost that cannot be denied!

....the contribution from Renewables just got that bit bigger by extension!

Nothing could be further form the truth. If the Uk and/or Australia built went for new nuclear power plants, it would do nothing to spread proliferation. Not one thing.

Renewables' limitations are geographical, cost, and techincal (among other issues). None of which will be reduced by the not going nuke. Infact as energy costs will increase, and by extension, the cost of living and manufacturing, the cost of renewables will also increase (exclamation mark).

[Baron Von Schweinehart]

If nuclear power was energy efficient, economically viable and clean, it'd be a wonderful enterprise, but unfortunately nuclear power fails on all counts. Fact is, the most expensive method of boiling water ever devised has never generated a single Watt of electrical current without massive up-front operating cost subsidies and construction grants.

According to US nuclear policy analyst Jim Riccio, Wall Street has yet to be sold on new nuclear investments in the United States. Moody’s credit rating agency, has stated that it “believes that many of the current expectations regarding new nuclear generation are overly ambitious,” raising questions about the industry’s cost estimates and its schedule for bringing the next U.S. nuclear reactor online. Moody’s concerns seem well placed. By the end of 2007, new nuclear plant cost estimates for identical Westinghouse-designed nuclear plants had soared, more than doubling to $12-18 billion

Here's the UK experience concerning fast breeder reactors.
Robots scour sea for atomic waste
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...n.conservation

Nuclear power – the energy balance
http://www.stormsmith.nl/publication...esentation.pdf
or
Welcome to the website STORMSMITH

This study comprises a full life cycle assessment (LCA) and energy analysis of the technical/industrial system which makes possible the generation of electricity from uranium. The LCA is based on the light-water reactor (LWR) in the once-through mode.

[Baron Von Schweinehart]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Nothing could be further form the truth. If the Uk and/or Australia built went for new nuclear power plants, it would do nothing to spread proliferation. Not one thing.

Actually it would encourage proliferation, because the nuke industry would feel emboldened to put their hand out for ever increasing welfare for corporate parasites. So far electricty generation via nuclear power has failed to break even, let alone make a profit anywhere on the planet, but hasn't stopped nuke proponents lining up for government handouts.

The fact that the only countries currently singing the praises of nuclear power are the very same countries possessing or coveting nuclear weapons, and that non nuclear armed nations formerly sucked into the nuclear power farce are all implementing 'Nuclear Phase -out' is proof positive that Nuclear Power exists primarilly to legitimise manufacturing radiological materials for nuclear and radioactive weapons.

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Nothing could be further form the truth. If the Uk and/or Australia built went for new nuclear power plants, it would do nothing to spread proliferation. Not one thing.

Renewables' limitations are geographical, cost, and techincal (among other issues). None of which will be reduced by the not going nuke. Infact as energy costs will increase, and by extension, the cost of living and manufacturing, the cost of renewables will also increase (exclamation mark).

A) Australia doesn't need it so you can take that attempt at diversion elsewhere...

B) You seemingly seek to misrepresent the magnitude of expansion of Nuclear Power necessary to combat Climate Change as the proposed rationale for a so called "Nuclear Renaissance".

C) What position are you in to give any such guarantees?
I'll tell you: a very weak one!

D) Your second paragraph is pure an unadulterated bulldust!

[Deathridesahorse]

As for Jim Riccio in conversation with others regarding the use of Nuclear Power: see here_

Is nuclear power essential to addressing climate change and energy independence? - NewTalk