The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Where to now, for Premier Weatherill's nuclear dream? > Comments

Where to now, for Premier Weatherill's nuclear dream? : Comments

By Noel Wauchope, published 8/11/2016

On November 6th, to the surprise of all, South Australia's Nuclear Citizens Jury came up with a report that overwhelmingly rejected the government's plan for importing and storing high level nuclear waste.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
A Racist determination is not valid. The Elders said something but does not the Government have eminent domain for the benefit of all in the State?

Allocation of a special, race based power is a very slippery slope for when is the next one and where does it end. Anyway such a poor and declining State will have to cut back on transfer payments soon.
Posted by McCackie, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 9:21:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
350 people out 1.7 million knock a profitable proposal in the head. Aborigines who have probably never seen the area in question don't like the idea, and that is important to the 350 bedwetters. The premier looks sulky, and isn't sure whether or not he will go ahead anyway. Millions of dollars wasted on a thorough investigation indicating that building of the repository could go ahead with safety. It's no wonder SA is the laughing stock of the country.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 9:49:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, what did we expect, when most asked were predisposed to answer no! Or implacably opposed, regardless of how good a case could be mounted!? The question was the wrong question and asked at the wrong time!

An education campaign initially on the benefits of nuclear energy ought to have preceded a statewide plebiscite? And asked once the old brow coal burner at Latrobe has been shut down, followed by the inevitable brown and blackouts, courtesy of the state's over-reliance on intermittent wind power!

The education needed to include the fact, that all nuclear energy is not the same but as different as coal fired power and hydro! And that less radioactive than a banana, thorium cannot be made to produce plutonium or a bomb, that molten salt thorium reactor is specifically designed to operate while in a molten state and that any unplanned shut down simply reverses that aspect!

Therefore had the ANTIQUATED reactors at either Chernobyl or Fukushima been based on molten salt and therefore operated at normal atmospheric pressures? They would now today still be pumping power into their resective grids!

Moreover, if designed as molten salt thorium reactors? End the necessity to either import or enrich the fuel!

Further, could have designed those reactors as slow breeder reactors that then could have been safely tasked with burning their present spent fuel and other waste, and in a cycle that continues until every last erg of available energy had been extracted, leaving truly spent waste with a half life of just 300 years!

To be sure, absolutely ignorant aboriginal elders would be opposed to putting the rainbow serpent in harness and asked to work for all humanity, where she could strive and strain to turn harsh reality into a universally abundant one?

End war and want by the simple expediency of feeding all nations, relieve pressure to compete for water and resources, which could be recycled with CLEAN, SAFE CHEAP ENERGY!

And a very helpful Tony Abbott, with an indigenous portfolio, could have been ever so helpful in that very outcome? LOL!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 8 November 2016 10:00:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are currently four proposals to connect SA to coal centres. That is to take wind power surpluses at times and receive coal power at other times. The idea is to both stabilise frequency and help in low wind periods such as heat waves. The alternative of course is for SA to get its own mid sized nuclear plant. Nuclear could perhaps also replace Hazelwood and Liddell coal stations nearer the east coast.

Nuclear power stations are currently mainly of the type using enriched uranium fuel and light water coolant. The spent fuel rods need to cool down for some time and may or may not be reprocessed depending on economics. The type of reprocessing depends on the next use but some material must be discarded. It doesn't all end up in smoke alarms. Whether or not SA gets a nuke it is the logical place for any reprocessing and long term storage of unusable material. Logical since it has Maralinga, uranium mines in the outback and the Royal Commission.

Therefore we could need a high level waste repository just for Australian material. Get that going on a modest scale. Then revisit the question of foreign waste once the hard yards have been done.
Posted by Taswegian, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 12:24:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taswegian: No thinking Australian is going to opt for a nuclear industry that is based on uranium, when a far far better alternative beckons' and as it does, allow us to use and consume waste other folk pay us billions to dispose of thoughtfully.

The mistakes of Long Island, Chernobyl and fukushima cannot be repeated here, ever! No if buts or maybes!

That said, the rest of what you argue has much merit and ought to be followed. But with molten salt thorium reactors, doing double duty as safe slow breeder reactors! And underpin an energy led, mother of an economic recovery!

I mean, why would any rational person argue for an energy system that consumes at best, just 5% of its fuel making it at least twice as expensive as coal in the process; and leaving tons and tons of highly toxic waste to be stored forever, when we can have an inherently safe, walk away safe, system and reactors that not only burn 95% of their fuel but burn and burn again the waste other nations would pay us billions to "store"!

A nuclear carbon free industry? YES!

One based exclusively on uranium and light water reactors! You just can't be serious!?

Now if you'd said, Molten salt, SAFE, CLEAN CHEAP thorium and slow breeder reactors in the same sentence? We might have been able to agree?

Instead, you've successfully aliened any possible consideration to a viable nuclear energy industry and inherently safe, walk away safe molten salt reactors, we can use to reduce harm and eat up the world's store of nuclear waste as well as weapons grade plutonium!

You on the other hand, seem to want to make more of it? along with waste that needs to be safely stored for hundreds of thousands of years? Well done!

And instead of you broken record uranium/light water repetition and the antinuclear alienation it is bound to foster? You need to get informed and up to date with your nuclear knowledge!

If you can't or won't help treehugger, you need to get out of the way!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 8 November 2016 1:54:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where to now, for Premier Weatherill's nuclear dream?
By Noel Wauchope, published 8/11/2016

Alan B; You make some thoroughly good points in your post of 1:54:36 today and this prompts me to ask, is there some book that an interested layperson might seek out that would be helpful in informing him/her of the advantages and disadvantages of the different kinds of nuclear reactors and the purposes to which they may be put? It might stretch credulity to breaking point if I stipulated that not only accuracy but also objectivity must be the principle features of the contents but I know of no cosmic equation that declares the impossibility of such a book existing so I am moderately optimistic of a positive outcome.

Meanwhile, might I enquire:

[a] What kind of salt is to be made molten and at what temperature? Salts abound in chemistry, as you probably know.
[b] What isotope of thorium is most suited to the process?
[c] Is sea water a suitable coolant? If so is the salt in sea water a usable by-product?
[d] Just off the top of your head do you know of any process within the overall process or any by-product that might be harmful to the environment, other than the spent fuel rods of course?
[e] Does the reactor salt require replacement after a certain period? If so what use can be made of the spent salt? Will it be radioactive? If so, how is it to be treated?

You seem to have a handle on the subject of nuclear reactors so I trust I find you in more amenable a mood than others of whom enquiries have been made of late.

Thank you for your time.
Posted by Pogi, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 4:22:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Premier Weatherill touted the wonderfulness of the Citizen's Jury process before it gave him an answer he didn't like, so its a bit embarrassing for him to ignore it.

In his acceptance speech he said the Jury had rejected "this" proposal, so he and the nuclear industry are sure to be back soon with a slightly different modification.

I find it bizarre that commentators on this article are going on about nuclear power in Australia. That has nothing to do with the Citizen's Jury which was assessing only the proposal to import waste.
Posted by RWood, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 4:42:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not to worry, once we have spent an enormous amount of money on solar
and wind and realise that it is still not reliable enough, there will
be a demand for nuclear power tomorrow.
Unfortunately nothing will be done until it is understood that a
reliable electricity system as we have now, will cost an infinite amount of money.
Then we will not have enough money to build the nuclear plant in a
reasonable time.

So it seems due to shortsighted politicians we will probably have
20 years of unreliable electricity supply. Freeze in the dark !
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 4:49:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pogi, if you have a good knowledge of chemistry and thermodynamics, the following might help to answer some of your questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
and if you Google "Thorium Reactor" you will find more.

Alan B. It isn't all beer and skittles with Thorium reactors either.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 5:27:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I said before, there was no chance of a different result, as the "jurors" had already made up their minds.

The only reason I can see for Labor setting up this farce is so that they can go back to the federal government with their begging bowls after screwing up yet more business opportunities, whilst claiming that at least they tried.

What a bunch of losers.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 7:29:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to Noel, the two major bases on which the jury made its decisions were what the indigenous wanted and the business proposal.

There still seems there is room to move on these, IMO, but a referendum is the only shot at it. Public debate follows a different dynamic to the jury presentation system, where misinformation is not necessarily countered through Q & A sessions.

I hold out for SA at least leaving the gate open for domestic nuclear waste and using its uranium for the purpose it exists.
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 9:20:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Pogi, The salt is fluoride lithium or fluoride beryllium. Melting point just north of 400C, where it behaves like water not yet brought to the boil, which is somewhere north of 1,000C Fluoride is a very poor receptor of neutrons and as a consequence rarely becomes, if ever, seriously radioactive!

Book?

Sorry, My more upto date info, was gained via Google tech talks and a dozen or more lectures, in plain english!

Suggest you listen to scientist Kirk Sorensen, who is encyclopedic in his knowledge of the subject. And while you're there and still interested, another half dozen scientists, will endevour to ensure no relevant gaps in your knowledge. Cooling? More molten salt and radiators. And heated Co2 or helium or nitrogen is ideal to turn a turbine, where a sweet spot of around 700C produces optimum energy transfer.

My background is in science, where I worked with radioactive material almost daily.

If I were to step out my door and fill a cubic metre box with soil, any soil! I'd be able to extract around 8 grams of thorium and with that 8 grams of the most energy dense material in the world. Be able to power my car and house; and produce all my material needs for a year!

And given the cost of recovering a sample pure enough, as is, for that purpose is around $100.00!

Moreover, it is theoretically possible to mount a miniaturized laser activated reactor in the back of your car, and use that 8 grams of thorium to power that car in complete safety, for the next 100 years, without ever refueling!

Energy that cheap can change the entire world, end all want and war!

And you just have to know that scares the living Bejesus out of both the fossil fuel industry and big nuclear. All of who, along with their tame progress preventing pollies? Could very soon become very redundant, with the roll out of clean safe cheap nuclear energy!?

And if the cap fits?

The Suppressed technology is already over fifty years old!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 8 November 2016 10:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pogi: The only isotope required in a thorium reactor is an isotope of thorium, thorium 303, which kick starts the reaction. Meaning, uranium is no longer required!

However, I understand the indians are trialling a thorium reactor that doubles as a slow breeder, where they can burn and reburn former nuclear waste, thereby reducing the half life of nuclear waste to just 300 years?

Thorium offers all the advantages of fusion without any of the inherent problems or danger! And given new desalination technology that utilises deionization and produces 95% Potable water for quarter of the cost of reverse osmosis!

Which when coupled to the world's cheapest cleanest safest energy? Able to make all the arid deserts of all the world bloom; and with just our current aid budgets, to make them into safe sanctuaries for the 65 million displaced people now languishing in refugee camps.

Then allow the dignity of "food production" work to replace unending handouts! Then redirect that former handout money into washing machines, lighting and laptops in every household, as the first step into a brave new world and a thousand year peace!

Every western style economy rest on just two support pillars, energy and capital! If we could remove greed driven hands from those and all the other cash cow essential service, we'd turn our world into a virtual shangri la!

Even more so, if we could outlaw middlemen profit takers, who add nothing but their profit demands and the usual paper shuffle. Removing them from our commercial reality, would halve the cost of living or doing business.

We shouldn't have pay some billionaire robber baron for stuff that falls from the sky as a gift and needed in all manner of production!

We must not go to war over it but ensure the world has all it needs as the only price worth paying, for peace!

And as minimum incomes traverse through $7500.00 a year, see populations plateau and stabilize. And as average incomes rise above $50,000 per, see population number contract, and the actual experience, when economic outcomes are successfully implemented!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 8 November 2016 11:52:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pogo. If you want to learn more about Nuclear matters go to
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science/unclear-about-nuclear/content-section-4.5

Alan B. Thorium 232 is a fertile material which by definition needs another source of neutrons to ultimately transmute it into U233 which is Fissile. I am not sure what the minimum mass of material which would be required to produce a sustainable reactor, but I suspect that it would be considerably more than your 8 grams of thorium.

See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 9 November 2016 6:15:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sucked in, that's all I can say.
You tried to pull a fast one on the indigenous and they sent you packing.
Saw you coming long before you came.

Seriously, you knew they'd oppose it and for good reasons but you pushed the issue anyway.
Spent the taxpayers money anyway.
Hoping that somehow you could manipulate and baffle them with bs like the corporate media does to Australians every single day and low and behold "We're shocked!, they didn't go along with it."

"We assumed these black people are stupid..."

You know in some ways it makes them a whole lot smarter then the average dumbed-down narrow-minded corporate-news-reading Aussie.
And still the pro-dumpers are going to keep pushing the issue, despite the "respect for the indigenous people" lip service insults they think will ultimately result in lining their own pockets.

The funny thing about my opinion is that I'm actually pro-nuclear, and pro-thorium.
I'd support a 50yr exploitation of nuclear power to power our nation as we move to renewables.

But I'm not going to support a nuclear waste dump if that's the only thing you can come up with to save south SA.
If that's the best you can come up with then SA deserves to die, give the whole state back to the indigenous.
At least THEY did not ever consider turning it into a nuclear waste dump.

The authors last article talked about reprocessing, but as one waded into the article it was about burying the waste in closed in tunnels.
Which is it?

I won't support a nuclear waste facility without nuclear power plants.
I won't turn this country into a nuclear waste dump if we are not even gaining the benefit of cheaper clean emission nuclear power.
I'm not paying what we pay in electricity and copping a nuclear waste dump as well, you must all be idiots.

This reprocessing business:
If the waste can be stored safely AND reprocessed at a later date - that is something I'd willingly consider.
But only if we have our own nuclear industry.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 9 November 2016 9:00:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B. I have done some further searching on the web and it appears that quite a bit has been done to try and produce a thorium reactor and except for the Indians, all have given it up as a futile very expensive exercise. The theory all sounds nice, just add a bit of U233 to your Th232 and away you go, the Th232 absorbs a neutron and after a couple of steps becomes U233 and the chain reaction continues. Unfortunately due to the mass of material required, this process takes quite a long time to get to equilibrium and U233 itself is a very hazardous material.
Just put "Thorium reactor" into your search engine and have a look for yourself. Don't just read the Wikipedia version, that was written by someone with stars in his eyes.
Also read http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 9 November 2016 4:12:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Noel

Thanks for another excellent nuclear waste article.

Overoptimistic Weatherill & Friend's projections of future revenue/profits from a waste dump are unhelpful because cost/revenue forecasts are totally unpredictable. Existing waste dumps have cost $Billions but earned nothing.

If there is money in nuclear Waste Dumps can anyone point to an existing waste dump overseas that is making the riches the SA Dump spruikers promise?

Russia and China generate alot of waste and like Australia have large deserts. Are Russian and Chinese desert waste dumps reaping the $Billions the South Australian dump lobby promise?

High level radioactive waste frequently needs to be cooled in pools of water that require constant electricity for water circulation - like cooling pools at the Fukushima nuclear complex and Lucas Heights. Any cessation of the electricity supply can lead to disasters like Fukushima.

The long term revenue and profits from Waste Dumps have been notoriously hard to predict and have cost $Billions with no $Billions earned. For example:

- Finland's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository#History is not yet earning anything, and

- conceived since 1987 the US Yucca Mountain waste dump project has not earned a cent yet it has more than the equivalent of AU$12 Billion in US taxpayers money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#The_facility

Dream on boys who belittle Noel's excellent articles.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 11 November 2016 9:28:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy