Nuclear Power Explained : Climate of Hope : Part 1

This animated documentary takes viewers on a tour through the science of climate change, the nuclear fuel chain, and the remarkable energy revolution that is under way.

Produced in 2007 by Scott Ludlam and Jose Garcia for the Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia.

http://www.anawa.org.au

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• climate
• change
• doc
• doco
• documentary
• nuclear
• energy
• low
• carbon
• reactor
• meltdown
• explanation
• how
• does
• it
• work
• plant
• cancer
• safety
• dangers

[Rumour66]

I agree. Did you watch part two and three of this?

[kryst1]

nice movie - i liked jurassic park better though

[jimmywrangles]

@fixfilet That's not entirely true.

The japanese navy was done for,it's army had copped a flogging but a major part of it was still functional and at home in Japan ready to fight.

The entire country of Japan was mobilised and ready to fight right down to school boys and girls.

Japanese culture was not geared mentally for surrender and I seriously doubt wether they would have,not without a fight anyway.

having said all that it's still all conjecture which is fun but ultimately piontless.

[fixfilet]

@BynoKawai ...read the books, honey. when the us decided to drop the bomb japan was already close to a capitulation. actually the us were afraid they would do so before they could present their little boy to the world.

there is always an alternative, specially to nuclear bombs.

[fixfilet]

@BynoKawai ...read the books, honey. when the us decided to drop the bomb japan was already close to a capitulation. actually the us were afraid they would do so before they could present their little boy to the world.

[Skellingtor]

Kool

[BynoKawai]

I wonder which would have killed more people: destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or sitting back while the war continued.

[papcio]

An example is that in 2003 we knew about 3,2mln tons of uranium that can be recovered with the price of 130$/kg (that's not much). 2005 we knew about 4,7 tons. With current production it would 80 years to deplete it. But there is still lots of it to find, and when we considere the price of 200$/kg it where dozens of mlns of tons if I remember correctly.

[papcio]

If it was true than no-one would invest in nuclear power, at least private capital. I also searched for various studies and there are really many that say, that the uranium reserves gonna last for hunders or thousands of years. The point is whether you consider unexplored resources and reusage of uranium from used fuel. Also new reactors are often fueled with MOX fuel. I know it may sound, like im saying "we simply gonna find it" but it is this way, we never looked for uranium.

[russlowes]

Continuing on the message I last posted, there are a number of studies that outline the decline of uranium. The assay, or ore content, was 3000 parts per million of U to gross ore weight in 1980. Today it averages 1500. It is projected to go to about 400 in 2040 or so, assuming hardly any nuclear expansion. Three studies show this, two under Sovacool's compliation, from the U.S., a Dutch study and an Australian study. Uranium mining and milling will increase with CO2 output skyrocketing.

[papcio]

I'm not going to argue about the studies you talk about, because I have my own studies etc. But still 60g/kwh would be almost CO2 free. Belive me one thing there is still plenty of uranium. Saying that the best ores are depleted is like saying that the best places for wind plants are occupied now. Somewhat true, but not really.