This water taste like shit | Saturday, June 17, 2006 |
To corrupt a quote from Mr Austin Powers
The UK and Australia have with both re-ignited the debate on the appropriateness of nuclear power and here, as there the debate is hotting up.
There are some striking differences between the nuclear history of both countries though. The UK currently has 23 reactors accounting for approximately 20% of grid production. Australia has none (except for those used in the production of medical isotopes for X-Rays and and the more complicated Tomography procedures and research devices.
Australia is one of the thirty or so countries in the world that can act as a Uranium source whereas the UK is a net reprocessor of spent uranium fuel rods, and a producer of Plutionium.
For many years the Australian government have had a "no new mines" policy but that is all up for debate now. Well, perhaps debate is too strong a world. General playground arguments would be more appropriate.
Clearly Nuclear is bad. It causes cancer. It eats small children and in far greater numbers than dingoes ever did.
In truth, it's quite safe. In terms of engery production it is quite efficient (and getting better). The perpetual promise of nuclear fusion is still 10-20 years away, but progress really is being made, with a Japenese lab reporting a significant advance in the lifespan ofplasma energy need to contain the fusion process. They're a long way off yet, but progress is progress.
If you consider the energy expended on mining the stuff versus coal, Uranium comes out favourably and Australia signed a production agreement with China a couple of months ago, which will see Uranium exported (not yet, but following production increases that will take about 5 years to develop).
The UK on the other hand has a different problem. The first generation of Magnox reactors were of realtively low output, subsequent generations of PWR's (pressurised water reactors) improved output with the final prodction reactor, (an Advanced Gas Reactor) producing 6 times as much power as the originals.
The problem is the first four Magnox reactors (2 of 4 at Dungeness, and 2 each at Oldbury, Sizewell and Wylfa) are at the end of their lifespan. Originally 30 years, some have been pushed to 50, but there is only so much you can do.
The costs for decomissioning the UK nuclear plants are put at £70 billion pounds. That's quite a hit.
So the real discussion is not how dangerous nuclear power is, not how efficient it is, not how it impacts CO2 production (it's a net consumer in AGRs as CO2 is used as the coolent), but really how much is it going to cost in 50 years time when it's time to turn off the lights, and what do we have to do now to pay for it. Tax anyone? Oh, and the waste.
Thankfully there are, or will be options. Fusion is still being advanced and other types of reactors being devleoped that use Thorium as a fuel. The half-life of the waste is much more reasonable (500 years which should be manageable compared to 20,000 years which is a more complex matter), and no possible production of Plutonium for weapons - you can't make a silk purse from a Sow's ear.
Now, back to the title of this post.
ANSTO (the body here that overseas the small domestic nuclear programme) have as a spin from reseach at one of the reactors (don't ask me how), have come up with a sewage recycling process that can output water suitable for clothes washing, toilets and other non-drinkable activities. At the same price as traditional town water, and small enough to be built into apartment blocks, this is a very good thing.
If you're prepared to take a $0.20 hit on the cost of 1000 litres you can make it drinkable. Given the water shortage here, this is a good thing and directly attributable to the nuclear research industry.
Perhaps it's not all bad after all?
The UK and Australia have with both re-ignited the debate on the appropriateness of nuclear power and here, as there the debate is hotting up.
There are some striking differences between the nuclear history of both countries though. The UK currently has 23 reactors accounting for approximately 20% of grid production. Australia has none (except for those used in the production of medical isotopes for X-Rays and and the more complicated Tomography procedures and research devices.
Australia is one of the thirty or so countries in the world that can act as a Uranium source whereas the UK is a net reprocessor of spent uranium fuel rods, and a producer of Plutionium.
For many years the Australian government have had a "no new mines" policy but that is all up for debate now. Well, perhaps debate is too strong a world. General playground arguments would be more appropriate.
Clearly Nuclear is bad. It causes cancer. It eats small children and in far greater numbers than dingoes ever did.
In truth, it's quite safe. In terms of engery production it is quite efficient (and getting better). The perpetual promise of nuclear fusion is still 10-20 years away, but progress really is being made, with a Japenese lab reporting a significant advance in the lifespan ofplasma energy need to contain the fusion process. They're a long way off yet, but progress is progress.
If you consider the energy expended on mining the stuff versus coal, Uranium comes out favourably and Australia signed a production agreement with China a couple of months ago, which will see Uranium exported (not yet, but following production increases that will take about 5 years to develop).
The UK on the other hand has a different problem. The first generation of Magnox reactors were of realtively low output, subsequent generations of PWR's (pressurised water reactors) improved output with the final prodction reactor, (an Advanced Gas Reactor) producing 6 times as much power as the originals.
The problem is the first four Magnox reactors (2 of 4 at Dungeness, and 2 each at Oldbury, Sizewell and Wylfa) are at the end of their lifespan. Originally 30 years, some have been pushed to 50, but there is only so much you can do.
The costs for decomissioning the UK nuclear plants are put at £70 billion pounds. That's quite a hit.
So the real discussion is not how dangerous nuclear power is, not how efficient it is, not how it impacts CO2 production (it's a net consumer in AGRs as CO2 is used as the coolent), but really how much is it going to cost in 50 years time when it's time to turn off the lights, and what do we have to do now to pay for it. Tax anyone? Oh, and the waste.
Thankfully there are, or will be options. Fusion is still being advanced and other types of reactors being devleoped that use Thorium as a fuel. The half-life of the waste is much more reasonable (500 years which should be manageable compared to 20,000 years which is a more complex matter), and no possible production of Plutonium for weapons - you can't make a silk purse from a Sow's ear.
Now, back to the title of this post.
ANSTO (the body here that overseas the small domestic nuclear programme) have as a spin from reseach at one of the reactors (don't ask me how), have come up with a sewage recycling process that can output water suitable for clothes washing, toilets and other non-drinkable activities. At the same price as traditional town water, and small enough to be built into apartment blocks, this is a very good thing.
If you're prepared to take a $0.20 hit on the cost of 1000 litres you can make it drinkable. Given the water shortage here, this is a good thing and directly attributable to the nuclear research industry.
Perhaps it's not all bad after all?
