Environment

nuclear energy verses coal fired powerstations ,solar,wind turbines hyhro wave energy

Environment

Posted by: passum

28th Dec 2010 02:49pm

To what degree are you the people of Australia prepaired to use alternative energies,
To coal fired powerstations. Would you support Nuculear recactor if it was built off shore under the ocean burried under ground in solid rock .
Or massive solar furnaces built around the country with wind generator support and gas turbines for peak load capacity fueled by fermeted garbage and coal seam gas mixture or the gas the oil rigs burn off.

Comments 41

daddyfreako
  • 13th May 2011 03:41pm

Wave power offers the greatest energy concentration of all alternative energy. Is 24 hr and mostly continuous, low environmental impact and not unsightly as its generally 2 - 3k off-shore.

Nuclear no way anywhere. The costs of decommissioning plus safety factors are a problem. Also uranium is a diminishing resource. Would maybe consider Thorium.

Solar furnaces. Not heard of this one. I like the giant passive greenhouse idea in the shape of a flattened chimney with turbines at the top. Passive. Can grow stuff underneath, doesn't require massive amounts of expensive to make silicon. I saw a TED talk a few years ago about very cheap to make solar devices, optimised for cheapness and readily available parts. They moved and kept facing the sun, but I never heard where that went

Cola Seam Gas is a nightmare. Have you seen the Gasland doco? Very polluting and pouring toxic chemicals into the ground "fracking" which then pollute the water table.

Hot rocks may be good. Wind turbines seem to have problems with noise and subsonics for people living nearby.

I have solar panels on my roof but the NSW govt has now cut the price that they buy back my electricity that the previous govt guaranted for 6 years. How unfair is that?

bigjimmy1
  • 9th May 2011 11:47am

would not support any type of nuclear reactor in australia might considersolar furnaces

brumar
  • 20th Apr 2011 04:36pm

Nuclear power should be the absolute last resort. There are many alternative methods and probably others that can be developed in the future.

riaria0203
  • 2nd Apr 2011 12:02am

Go renewable sources of energy! I strongly believe that after the devastation in Japan many nations have learnt a lesson from this incident and are not considering nuclear energy for the time being. Although there are many benefits using renewable sources of energy it won't be cheap to convert over. At the moment I'm ultimately concerned with the rising electricity bill, so whichever is the cheaper method to go for would be the deal for me!

passum
  • 31st Mar 2011 03:00pm

got photoes on computer to prove point and listen to internet news

JPBear
  • 22nd Mar 2011 10:11am

I am a big believer in renewable energy products such as Solar, wind and hydro. Nuclear can stay out of Australia. The current crisis in Japan is enough to prove it is not safe.
We need the government to keep up initiatives for renewable energy sources so that the industry stays afloat in these uncertain times

passum
  • 30th Mar 2011 09:17pm
I am a big believer in renewable energy products such as Solar, wind and hydro. Nuclear can stay out of Australia. The current crisis in Japan is enough to prove it is not safe.
We need the...

mr bear You are on the right track but rember tough decisions have put a government into a very tight corner between believers and non believers of enviouremental problems and carbon taxing etc they have fought for renewable energy and low poluting type industries for every one.

passum
  • 17th Mar 2011 03:39pm

Im sorry it took a major catastrophy to get this subject going since i first put it up i think we all should feel grief for those hurt in JAPAN and The Reacter Workers who DIED trying to PREVENT MELTDOWNS these units were relitive safe., but for nature is more powerfull than anything man made. Had they been built in a more stable region they would have lasted for many years. even though they end up making long lasting waste radioactive material it can be re intombed into bedrock .

lpullman
  • 31st Mar 2011 12:24am
Well who got vaporised when the reactor blew up. I am shure sombody was at work dont you .ie lost water and overheated causing roof to blow off into air releasing radation no one wants to admit...

Sigh. No one got vaporised and no reactor blew up.

The explosion you are referring to was hydrogen that had built up in the outer containment after being vented from the reactor vessel itself (so that IT didn't rupture). The building did exactly what the engineers designed it to do in such a circumstance and collapsed in on itself (which I think is pretty impressive considering it had already withstood an earthquake and a tidal wave).

Clearly you haven't been following it carefully enough or you'd know that. I suggest you get you information from sources that actually have a clue rather than the ignorant muppets at Channel 9. The blind leading the blind...

Chernobyl (note the spelling, please) was in Belarus, not Russia, and it was a very different animal. While both the Chernobyl and Fukuyama reactors are boiling water types their designs are very different. I suggest you look it up and learn a bit about it. The reactors at Fukuyama, although 40 years old, were designed in such a way that what should the core melt and burn through the containment vessel, the drop in pressure would cause the liquid metal to expand rapidly, solidifying in a formation that was no longer critical (in the nuclear physics sense) and the fission reaction stops. Quite clever using Boyle's Law like that.

Now what went wrong at Fukuyama was that there was a 10m tidal wave four hours after an huge earthquake. The reactors (those that were running) were shut down as planned, but it takes several days for them to cool and cooling water has to be circulated during that time (remember: it's been running hot enough to boil water under pressure to generate electricity) and when the tidal wave hit, it wiped out the diesel generators that powered the pumps in the absence of mains power. The battery backup kicked in and ran for another 8 hours, but no one could get in to fix the generators because of the debris from the tidal wave. This incidentally was the reason for using helicopters to drop water on the fuel holding ponds - not reactors, holding ponds. The biggest pump they could get close enough quickly was a fire truck and seawater was used because the freshwater supply was exhausted. Good thinking, I'd say.

But you'd know all of that if you'd been following this very carefully instead of relying on hysterical news reports.

passum
  • 30th Mar 2011 09:12pm
Sigh. I agree with your sentiment, but not your statement. No reactor works died trying to prevent anything. Where did you get this idea? My recollection is that one died when a crane collapsed...

Well who got vaporised when the reactor blew up. I am shure sombody was at work dont you .ie lost water and overheated causing roof to blow off into air releasing radation no one wants to admit in first instance but it will eventualy all come out have look at photoes channel 9 have been puting on the internet .
I have been following this very carefully.
It wont be the ones that die straight away, they will die like the Russians did some time later,from the after effects as well as possible future birth defects that will happen in future generations, {REMEBER CHENNOBLE}

passum
  • 30th Mar 2011 09:12pm
Sigh. I agree with your sentiment, but not your statement. No reactor works died trying to prevent anything. Where did you get this idea? My recollection is that one died when a crane collapsed...

Well who got vaporised when the reactor blew up. I am shure sombody was at work dont you .ie lost water and overheated causing roof to blow off into air releasing radation no one wants to admit in first instance but it will eventualy all come out have look at photoes channel 9 have been puting on the internet .
I have been following this very carefully.
It wont be the ones that die straight away, they will die like the Russians did some time later,from the after effects as well as possible future birth defects that will happen in future generations, {REMEBER CHENNOBLE}

lpullman
  • 30th Mar 2011 02:08pm
Im sorry it took a major catastrophy to get this subject going since i first put it up i think we all should feel grief for those hurt in JAPAN and The Reacter Workers who DIED trying to PREVENT...

Sigh. I agree with your sentiment, but not your statement. No reactor works died trying to prevent anything. Where did you get this idea? My recollection is that one died when a crane collapsed during the earthquake and two contractors have received radiation burns (similar to a nasty sunburn and something every welder has experienced) because they did not follow the safety procedures.

These units generated power for Tokyo for up to 40 years. One was actually a month or so from being decommissioned.

It is a sad and tragic event and far too much attention has been focused on a very minor part of it.

passum
  • 17th Mar 2011 02:43pm

the main problem is population growth leads to more power usage until we learn to use power wisely we will never dig ourselves out of thes we huemans have got our selves into ps u dont need to run lights in every street shop road carpark etc when no ones there this load could be taken up by the aluminum industry
at reduced rate
some money for this wasted energy is better than none if it help to keep people employed .
THE MORE WE BREED THE WORSE IT WILL BECOME AS WE ALL CONSUMERS AND ITS OUR RESPONIBILITY TO DO OUR SHARE IN STOPPING UNECESSARY WASTE>

sarishka
  • 30th Mar 2011 03:53pm
PS How much energy do you recone water soluble solar paint will produce per square metre. Its very little compared with known methods the Germans had last world war, that is how long solar energy...

Of course solar paint doesn't generate as much power per square metre, but the answer lies in the area it can cover. I'm actually waiting for someone to come up with a roofing material that also generates solar power...now that would be the answer, but I doubt the energy/coal industries would let it get off the ground. Money, money, money is the determining factor in the end.

lpullman
  • 30th Mar 2011 02:15pm
At the end of the day, all roads lead back to over-population. So who don't we want, who will we get rid of, and who will decide. My vote goes to Mother Nature.

I doubt solar paint would...

Indeed overpopulation is the root cause. Based on resource consumption, we have far too many Americans, Australians, British, Canadians, French, Germans, Italians, etc.

Yep, it's us that are the problem right now. In future it might be the Chinese and Indians, but they at least are doing something about it. Everyone else in the "south" doesn't even rate a blip on the graph. Unfortunately, it's those poor people that "Mother Nature" will punish, not us rich folk who can afford to live on the high ground.

passum
  • 19th Mar 2011 08:11pm
At the end of the day, all roads lead back to over-population. So who don't we want, who will we get rid of, and who will decide. My vote goes to Mother Nature.

I doubt solar paint would...

PS How much energy do you recone water soluble solar paint will produce per square metre. Its very little compared with known methods the Germans had last world war, that is how long solar energy has been around using simular methods we use today.
Are u shure the paint you are refering to is not one of the new reflective paints to keep houses and buildings cool as they are being researched all the time too.

passum
  • 17th Mar 2011 03:29pm
At the end of the day, all roads lead back to over-population. So who don't we want, who will we get rid of, and who will decide. My vote goes to Mother Nature.

I doubt solar paint would...

been tried failed thats myanswer worked in research end of subjecdt

sarishka
  • 17th Mar 2011 03:16pm
the main problem is population growth leads to more power usage until we learn to use power wisely we will never dig ourselves out of thes we huemans have got our selves into ps u dont need to run...

At the end of the day, all roads lead back to over-population. So who don't we want, who will we get rid of, and who will decide. My vote goes to Mother Nature.

I doubt solar paint would lead to a meltdown, and on New Inventors last year one finalist (and uni team) has developed water soluble solar paint.

It's my belief that the answers already exist, it's the will of the powers that be which doesn't.

sarishka
  • 17th Mar 2011 01:57pm

The powers that be will determine what energy we use, and what profits they make from it. and I'm not talking about the governments here, for they too are puppets.
Solar paint over every building in Australia makes sense to me, but what profit could be made from that I laugh every time I get an electricity bill and included is a pamphlet on how to say energy, are we fooled?

Nikola Tesler invented the alternating current induction generator, http://www.hobbyprojects.com/progression-of-electronics-technology/nikola-tesler.html
Where is this technology now, and why aren't voters insisting governments investigate and use it.

I reiterate, WE do not make the choices nor reap the profits.

lpullman
  • 30th Mar 2011 02:00pm
further to my last comment.
The man in question is actually Nikola Tesla and further to his invention of the alternating current induction generator (widely used today), was his alternative,...

Environmentally friendly!? Are you nucking futs?

He was using huge, high frequency, high voltage radio transmitters to induce currents in nearby equipment. The ground formed the earth in the circuit. You should read the accounts of people getting electric shocks from signs and fire hydrants and sparks jumping from the hobnails in their boots 3 miles from his lab in Colorado Springs.

lpullman
  • 30th Mar 2011 01:54pm
The powers that be will determine what energy we use, and what profits they make from it. and I'm not talking about the governments here, for they too are puppets.
Solar paint over every...

Nice idea, but solar paint doesn't exist. There was an interesting project at Flinders Uni a few years back to develop a film that could be layered onto plate glass. I understand the returns were a couple of orders of magnitude too low to justify the effort.

These days we call an alternating current generator an alternator (look under the bonnet of your car and you'' find one) or a generator. They are what generates your electricity at home, at work and everywhere you find alternating current.

Tesla coils form the basis of every AC transformer. There's one inside the power supply for the computer you wrote this on. There's one inside every power supply you use and a great big one attached to a pole in your street somewhere.

Where is this technology today? Everywhere.

Where is this technology? Everywhere.

passum
  • 17th Mar 2011 02:58pm
The powers that be will determine what energy we use, and what profits they make from it. and I'm not talking about the governments here, for they too are puppets.
Solar paint over every...

Dear Nicola,Solar or or dissumilar metalised layered paint.
Solar paint type products have been tryed before not saying they wont work but there is a lot of research into these things to do. Take this as example, say the paint on your house was producing maximum power its overloads, the paint starts to go into meltdown house burns up no house.Who are you going to blame the government or the manufacturer ?

sarishka
  • 17th Mar 2011 02:43pm
The powers that be will determine what energy we use, and what profits they make from it. and I'm not talking about the governments here, for they too are puppets.
Solar paint over every...

further to my last comment.
The man in question is actually Nikola Tesla and further to his invention of the alternating current induction generator (widely used today), was his alternative, wireless electricity using atmospheric electricity. Now this is truly a form of energy which is cheap, readily available and environmentally friendly. If we were fair dinkum, wouldn't we investigate this...yeah..well not while we have a coal industry I'd say.

sandgroper
  • 17th Mar 2011 05:29am

Whilst watching the nightmare in Japan, we'd have to be pretty thick to not be questioning the sprouting experts re nuclear power plants, nuclear energy, etc .
Maybe solar energy + it being the individual's responsibility .. It'd be expensive to convert, but would be economical if it was the norm for all new constructions .. In time the battery banks [ power banks] would become much smaller and safer .
Resurgence of the windmill would also be fine, if they weren't so noisy..

daddyfreako
  • 13th May 2011 03:45pm
"The nightmare in Japan" was a major earthquake and tidal wave. The nuclear "incident" is, well, incidental. To put this in perspective: 28,000 people are dead or missing and all we hear from the...

Caesium levels in seawater 18,000 times more than the safe level is part of what you term a "non-existant crisis" " a 30Km exclusion zone, food that can't be sold. What would have to happen before it was a crisis?

passum
  • 31st Mar 2011 07:22pm
Again, not sure what you are getting at here. What does the crust thickening have to do with this? Sorry, but I'm just not getting your point here.

As the surface Cools over Billions of years the crust the outer skin solid rock gets thicker .
Re you and decaying rock, radioactive, only certain types of rock contain radioactive material that has to be concentrated before it becomes dangerous.
The centre is molten, not the other way around, so molten core, crust, heat scource. somwhere between crust and molten core.
Ever been deep under ground and sweated that is the heat in the bedrock around you that we want to tap into .
In heat transfer we use a chemical simular to refrigant to collect heat and then this is transfered int o electricty by this chemical spinning alternaters as it expands goes through cooling process then it extracts any availablre heat in the transfer device then starts allover again simple isnt it .

lpullman
  • 31st Mar 2011 04:33pm
The centre of the earth is moltern, the crust is just what it says a crust ,an outside mass of solided material. Volcanic material is not very radioactive minute amounts this solid crust is getting...

Again, not sure what you are getting at here. What does the crust thickening have to do with this? Sorry, but I'm just not getting your point here.

passum
  • 31st Mar 2011 02:56pm
"High pressure steam has been contained ie used for many years going back to the 1800,s with great success"

Indeed steam has been used as a WORKING FLUID for a long time. But you always...

The centre of the earth is moltern, the crust is just what it says a crust ,an outside mass of solided material. Volcanic material is not very radioactive minute amounts this solid crust is getting more as the center core cools, also it creats more land mass with every volcanic reaction.

passum
  • 31st Mar 2011 02:45pm
"High pressure steam has been contained ie used for many years going back to the 1800,s with great success"

Indeed steam has been used as a WORKING FLUID for a long time. But you always...

The same way we now extract heat from the atmosphere to make hot water a thing called heat transfer pump. The problem with these things they consume energy ie electricty to start with. Ie {HEAT TRANSFER PUMPS TO ELICTRICTY}.
In Newzealand heat from volcanic activity is already being used. There is no good reason residual heat from ground around volcanoes cannot be used in conjunction with sea water for cooling cooled in cooling towers except when the volcano blows it top what happens to the thermal powerstation.

passum
  • 31st Mar 2011 02:45pm
"High pressure steam has been contained ie used for many years going back to the 1800,s with great success"

Indeed steam has been used as a WORKING FLUID for a long time. But you always...

The same way we now extract heat from the atmosphere to make hot water a thing called heat transfer pump. The problem with these things they consume energy ie electricty to start with. Ie {HEAT TRANSFER PUMPS TO ELICTRICTY}.
In Newzealand heat from volcanic activity is already being used. There is no good reason residual heat from ground around volcanoes cannot be used in conjunction with sea water for cooling cooled in cooling towers except when the volcano blows it top what happens to the thermal powerstation.

lpullman
  • 30th Mar 2011 11:44pm
Nuclear options should only be taken up after all other methods have been exploited.
High pressure steam has been contained ie used for many years going back to the 1800,s with great...

"High pressure steam has been contained ie used for many years going back to the 1800,s with great success"

Indeed steam has been used as a WORKING FLUID for a long time. But you always need something to boil the water. It's the change in volume that makes it possible to extract work (in the physics sense) from the system. That's what these machines do - they convert energy from one form to another.

"Not all deep heat is radiactive..."

True, but what we are trying to tap is the result of natural radioactive decay in the earth's crust. That is what heats the rocks that heat the water used as a working fluid. In places like New Zealand the geology is rather more complex, but in the north of South Australia, where the pilot projects are happening right now, that is the heat source. So my point stands - geothermal is nuclear power in a way :-)

"In other places such as Murrundi in New South Wales, coal has been on fire for many years"

And a terrible thing it is. People have been trying to think of ways to exploit it, and the underground coal fires in Pennsylvania, for years. Thus far nothing has come of it. If you can crack that one, they want to know in the Philippines and Hawaii so they can apply it to their volcanoes.

"Heat could also be extracted from bore water..."

Not really sure what you are getting at here. How are you proposing to extract the energy from the water?

passum
  • 30th Mar 2011 05:00pm
"The nightmare in Japan" was a major earthquake and tidal wave. The nuclear "incident" is, well, incidental. To put this in perspective: 28,000 people are dead or missing and all we hear from the...

Nuclear options should only be taken up after all other methods have been exploited.
High pressure steam has been contained ie used for many years going back to the 1800,s with great success .
Not all deep heat is radiactive as the whole center of the earth is molten .
In other places such as Murrundi in New South Wales, coal has been on fire for many years this heat could also have been utilised for energy production.
Heat could also be extracted from bore water then pumped back down well to greater depth .But lets face it energy needs to come from some-where and non Poluting. Using solar, wind combination at day to force water down wells and at night, draw off thermal energy.for off peak energy.

We need to look into extracting energy in a way that is less poluting finding better products use less waist less travel wisely consume less as a society

lpullman
  • 30th Mar 2011 01:32pm
Whilst watching the nightmare in Japan, we'd have to be pretty thick to not be questioning the sprouting experts re nuclear power plants, nuclear energy, etc .
Maybe solar energy + it being...

"The nightmare in Japan" was a major earthquake and tidal wave. The nuclear "incident" is, well, incidental. To put this in perspective: 28,000 people are dead or missing and all we hear from the mainstream media is hysteria over a non-existent crisis at a 40 year old nuclear power plant? I think some sense of perspective is in order.

In all seriousness, nuclear is the only option we have if we are to continue our current electricity consumption habits. Not that reducing our consumption wouldn't be A Very Good Thing.

passum
  • 17th Mar 2011 10:28pm
In the outback [?] - like 200 miles from the nearest glimmer of electricity; gas,petrol+ diesel suppliers, we use liquid fuelled generators to charge the battery banks which supply all of the...

even though i live in city we still have water tanks i installed during drought and they have never been empty condensation at night helps to keep water in them when no rainfrom roof and sheds
battery banks with my wind generater are as good as useless dont get enough wind to charge them fully.
all of my excess power is fed back into grid
if your liquid fuel you are using is petrol it is also contrubuting to co2 in atmosphere
and sooner or later we will also run out of petrolum products to run generators on. maybe you will run it on liquifed gass then.

passum
  • 17th Mar 2011 10:28pm
In the outback [?] - like 200 miles from the nearest glimmer of electricity; gas,petrol+ diesel suppliers, we use liquid fuelled generators to charge the battery banks which supply all of the...

even though i live in city we still have water tanks i installed during drought and they have never been empty condensation at night helps to keep water in them when no rainfrom roof and sheds
battery banks with my wind generater are as good as useless dont get enough wind to charge them fully.
all of my excess power is fed back into grid
if your liquid fuel you are using is petrol it is also contrubuting to co2 in atmosphere
and sooner or later we will also run out of petrolum products to run generators on. maybe you will run it on liquifed gass then.

sandgroper
  • 17th Mar 2011 07:47pm
Dear Sandgroper solar energy with its substities has never been cheaper and will pay for its self with proper usage you may finding washing at times where electricty is cheep will help your bills...

In the outback [?] - like 200 miles from the nearest glimmer of electricity; gas,petrol+ diesel suppliers, we use liquid fuelled generators to charge the battery banks which supply all of the energy needed for the fridges, freezer, washing machine, TV, iron,etc. The windmill draws the water for the garden + household usage. The rainwater tanks store whatever water for personal consumption. .. I personally prefer boiled bore water... Gas bottles fuel the large cooking range.

passum
  • 17th Mar 2011 02:49pm
Whilst watching the nightmare in Japan, we'd have to be pretty thick to not be questioning the sprouting experts re nuclear power plants, nuclear energy, etc .
Maybe solar energy + it being...

Dear Sandgroper solar energy with its substities has never been cheaper and will pay for its self with proper usage you may finding washing at times where electricty is cheep will help your bills same with cooking backed dinners etc.
ive got a wind alternator and its fine not noisy but there is more Sun than Wind where i come from

Karen
  • 17th Mar 2011 12:07am

No - I will never support coal fired power stations or Nuclear energy. I am very supportive of alternative power such as wind towers and solar energy. After the recent Japanese disaster with Nuclear energy I think Australia should immediately abandon any thoughts of Nuclear energy in this country.

lpullman
  • 30th Mar 2011 01:41pm
I have to agree with Passum.
Thermal power is something that has been bandied about for a number of years. I have to wonder why more has not been said about it. I was watching a documentary...

They've been doing the geothermal power thing in New Zealand and Scandinavia for decades. Our problem is we have to drill down a very long way to find any rocks hot enough for the purpose. There are a couple of pilot projects underway in the mid-north of SA right now. As an aside: do you know what the source of heat they are tapping is? Radioactive decay...

Radiation shouldn't frighten the hell out of you. To quote a decades old Palmolive ad, "you're soaking in it". All the time and from any number of sources. Google "background radiation" for an explanation.

As for steam, in the days when high pressure boilers were common, it was a major killer. Superheated steam is nasty as all hell when things go wrong. Check out the Mythbusters episode with the exploding hot water services if you have any doubts. Conversely, it is a major component in just about every industrial scale electricity generating cycle.

MariaG
  • 19th Mar 2011 04:20pm
Dear Karen. You are well with the current situation with neuclear energy , i have a solar unit which is giving me a return of $1600 per quater and a small wind generator i use to run airaters in...

I have to agree with Passum.
Thermal power is something that has been bandied about for a number of years. I have to wonder why more has not been said about it. I was watching a documentary on ABC a couple of years ago that touched on this. It was fascinating. The most interesting aspect for me was that it seemed so simple and there were no nasty by products. That being said, I'm sure there would be much more to it than simple heat converting water to steam to power. Still, it certainly bears up further research. Geez ... coal is not limitless and radiation frightens the heck out of me. Steam ... I think may be something that can be kept under control, and, it's clean. But I'm no scientist.

passum
  • 17th Mar 2011 02:21pm
No - I will never support coal fired power stations or Nuclear energy. I am very supportive of alternative power such as wind towers and solar energy. After the recent Japanese disaster with...

Dear Karen. You are well with the current situation with neuclear energy , i have a solar unit which is giving me a return of $1600 per quater and a small wind generator i use to run airaters in pet fish
I have solar hot water of which i keep the booster turned off
my ceiling was filled with waste insulation that would have ended at tip ,the solar pannels cover the whole of my back roof keeping the house cooler in summer.but not every person can afford to do this as it broke me doing it
neuclear energy in some areas would be relitve safer option to coal but finding the right locations near where the power is to be consumed may be impossible that only leaves us with one option in Australia that is therminal power from deep wells into the earth which in them selves could cause problems with blowouts which also would require massive amounts of water to convert to steam .


Help Caféstudy members by responding to their questions, or ask your own in Café Chat, and you will get the chance of earning extra rewards. Caféstudy will match these and donate equally to our two chosen Australian charities.

AMCS
Australian Marine Conservation Society are an independent charity, staffed by a committed group of scientists, educators and passionate advocates who have defended Australia’s oceans for over 50 years.
Reach Out
ReachOut is the most accessed online mental health service for young people and their parents in Australia. Their trusted self-help information, peer-support program and referral tools save lives by helping young people be well and stay well. The information they offer parents makes it easier for them to help their teenagers, too.