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 > A disaster we must not repeat > Comments

A disaster we must not repeat : Comments

By Christine Milne, published 3/5/2006

It may be inconvenient but Chernobyl attests to the dangers of nuclear energy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
I continue to support the Greens because of their policies which are not dictated by profit.
The finite nature of energy resources and the escalating price of fossil fuel has created a knee jerk reaction by some as time to re-examine Nuclear as an alternative source.
I believe there are more renewable alternatives that must be explored and utilised such as solar,wind,tidal,ethanol that are safer and not potentially injurious to life on this planet way before Nuclear energy.
You will continue to get my vote and as more people come to realise that Nuclear is neither safe nor cheap, Green support will grow.
You can expect an avalanche of opposition from nuclear apologists but don't be swayed
Posted by maracas, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:58:53 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
I am not convinced: even after reading some of the information on the links provided the data does not support claims that the region was devastated or the accident resulted in death's in 6 figures

Even the epidemiological studies do not forecast death's in their thousands goinf forward - some projected increases in cancer can only be implied not proven to be Chernobyl related.

Thirty years ago the anti nuclear movement would have been classified as a creature born out of an "alternative" counter culture mind set - nothing wrong with that.

But there is something wrong with that up to the point that movements like that become the new orthodoxy - which the anti nuclear movement fast approaches -

at or near that point it should become subject to some pretty critical analysis if it stands in the way of reasoned development.

Alternative moovemens become counter productive when they adopt the new mantle of dogma; saying no to nuclear power twenty years on after Chernobyl and the development of newer generation plants is a very conservative and old fashioned way of thinking - the children of the revolution would be ashamed.
Posted by sneekeepete, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:04:01 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
Christine must know that the design faults including a positive void coefficient are unique to the RMBK reactor. Since Chernobyl important modifications have been made to this type of reactor, and together with improved operational procedures the remaining RMBK reactors are working safely.

She must also be aware of the safe operation over many years of both power and research reactors world wide. The integrity of containment structure was demonstrated in Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Over all the safety record of nuclear reactors is commendable. According to information on the UIC web site between years 1970-1992 (Which covers the Chernobyl accident) the deaths normalised to TWy of electricity generation is 8 for nuclear, compared to 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas and 883 for hydro.

Even wind generation has its accident rate and fatalities as compiled by the Caithness Wind farm Information Forum. Their data may not be complete. They point out the difficulties in obtain this information. However, it can be regarded as “the tip of the iceberg.”
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/pages/accidentData.htm

Since the 1970’s there have been 273 accidents and 34 fatalities. The increased numbers of accidents and fatalities since the year 2000 may be due to more readily assessable data, or to an increase in the numbers of wind turbines.

Blade failure accounted for 91 accidents, Fire the second most common cause, is important because:
a) The turbine height make it difficult if not impossible for fire brigades
b) Flying embers can cause secondary grass and forest fires.

Other accidents with wind farms, include ice throws (20 recorded and 1 example of human injury), structural failure, lightening strikes, collusion of a parachutist with a turbine and road traffic accidents attributed to drivers being distracted by the windmills.

The Green groups must know that the bulk of the medical and scientific literature gives no support to their anti-nuclear views.
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:17:55 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
I continue to have mixed views on this topic.

- The long term storage/disposal of Nuclear waste appears to be a real issue. Will we have a safe long term storage solution available in the near future. It is my understanding that the existing solutions do have significant long term risks.
- The bigger the nuclear industry the greater the risks of nuclear material being used for aggressive purposes.
- I tend to accept the argument that well built nuclear facilities may be safer to operate on a day to day basis than other current alternatives.
- I'm not so convinced about the safety of nuclear facilities following major disasters (man made or natural).
- I don't like some of the alternatives. What are the environmental/visual impacts of industrial sized tidal facilities placed at locations with usable tidal flows. I'm assuming that for serious generation capabilities tidal generation will only be viable in a limited number of locations. Likewise for large windfarms.
- I do get concerned that much of the opposition uses a level of spin in their arguments that puts their credibility at risk.
- I doubt that we have any viable alternatives available which address the real world issues of growing economies such as China.
- I suspect that rather than opposing nuclear energy our energies would be better spend on ensuring that plants are as safe as they can be. Is the world better off with Iran making it up as they go(and still building nuclear plants) or with them having access to the best knowledge available to build the safest plants possible?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 12:17:23 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
Well said, anti-green. It was the language used by Milne that gave her away. Terms like "the break-up of the Chernobyl sarcophagus" and "went into nuclear meltdown" are the tools of a propagandist, not those of an educator. Chernobyl was not a melt down. It was an accident that was contained before a meltdown took place. To describe it as "going into meltdown" is about as truthfull as describing a speeding ticket as "going into a life of crime".

And does this sorry excuse for a political party seriously expect the public to believe that the 30 to 40 year old technology at Chernobyl represents the current state of the art in Russia, let alone the rest of the world?

Do the Greens seriously expect the public to assume that not a single nuclear scientist or engineer of influence has spent any more than a greenie's attention span in studying what happened at Chernobyl over the past two decades?

The fact that the Greens have learned nothing over 20 years is hardly a compelling case for assuming that cutting edge engineers have done the same. But I guess the view is always pretty dark when you spend your life with your head in a paper bag.
Posted by Perseus, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 12:19:37 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
"Carbon dioxide reduction targets can be met without nuclear power through demand reduction, energy efficiency, co-generation and investment in and rapid deployment of renewable energy. These are cheaper, faster, safer and more sustainable."

This is the usual Greenie stuff consisting of vague uncheckable assertions with no supporting data.

Co-generation is only useful if you have a need for low grade heat, typically for space heating and water heating.

Where are these allegedly cheaper sources of energy? I have yet to find a solar cell that gets anywhere close to being economic. Even wind farms in Australia are only viable because some people are willing to pay a 'green' premium for the power. The solar tower project in Victoria is going nowhere, for the simple reason that even on the proponents own estimates (and that's before it's been built), it's too expensive. Hot rock technology may prove its worth, but it's not there yet.

People don't just die from nuclear power station accidents. They also die, in large numbers, from poverty. Economically viable supplies of power are an essential ingredient in raising and maintaining people's standards of living. Our descendants, and those in third world countries, will not thank us for delivering them a future that is nuclear free, but economically bankrupt.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 1:01:34 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
Instead of trying to scare us I suggest the Greens give us an alternative energy plan with output figures and costings. If it has a basis in reality the electorate should be impressed. Currently it seems hard to argue that windpower and ethanol will ever be enough to replace coal and oil. It's not that nuclear problems are being glossed over, it's just that with nuclear the numbers add up.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 1:10:16 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
Another Chernobyl may or may not happen. Except for a meltdown or accident of the same size, the main worry I see with nuclear is the storage and containment problems, that are so long term. Nuclear like other technologies will pass by as we develop more understanding as to how our solar system and the universe operates, then we will be able to harness the energy created by our planet orbiting the sun.

I expect we will have another and better energy producer within the next 5 years, then we'll see nuclear go of the radar. Our next energy step will be to fully renewable and inexhaustible supplies. We may even be able to harness this energy from within the earth or between the earth and moon.

Its inevitable that as we evolve we find other and better ways. They are pushing the nuclear to try and move the goals posts to where they can control energy resources, nothing else. Its just part of the merry go round thats used to keep us all under control when they want to increase their profits at our expense.

Nothing like a good conspiracy theory I say. The greens, they are a necessary part of the system, without them or some other socially aware party, we would revert to serfs, which is what its beginning to look like now.
Posted by The alchemist, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 3:58:47 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
Before we start arguing again, why not get an education?

...with this video:

rtsp://web5.ead.anl.gov:564/video/fullduf6.rm

...on this US Government page:

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/video/duf6story.cfm

Here you will see that the "cutting edge" engineers are sitting on well over 700,000 tons of DuF6, all stored in iron cylinders - a whole sea of them - requiring repainting, nursing and patient attention. That waste dates back to 1946. Yes, cutting edge engineers have been biting their nails for 60 years, still with no result.

The whole toxic brew begins because we need to dissolve uranium in hydrofluouric acid (UF6) in order to separate the isotopes by weight in (naughty, naughty) centrifuges. UF6 compound gasifies easily at moderate temperatures, so the whole processing stream and equipment can be maintained at this temperature. But that is the easy bit.

The hard bit to swallow is that approximately 90% of our yellowcake ends up as radioactive waste in the form of toxic, foul DuF6 - and never gets near a reactor - never even boils one cup of tea.

If we try to dissassemble this huge stream of tailings back into something more benign, nuclear energy begins to look like a loser.

The fluorine component is valuable in fertiliser, but hey, the residual radioactivity builds up in the soil. One of nature's cruel jokes, I'm afraid. Anyone for fluoride (only SLIGHTLY radioactive)? Toothpaste maybe? Ah, come on!

The uranium metal IS valuable for DU penetrators. The Iraqi holocaust has shown that it is possible to have something like a slow working gas-chamber for people that we don't like. DU oxides take longer to work than cyanide gas, but hey, by the time the corpses need burning, we've shot through cobber! Another plus for the cutting edge engineer.

On balance, I am for the storage of the world's nuclear waste here in Australia - seriously.

If we are to be the "boutique" sellers of McYellowcake at the drive-thru (don't forget the Smurf), we are honour-bound to be the dunnymen at the sewerage plant.

...and if your local plant goes critical, "Do you want that with fries?"
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 4:07:26 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
It's is all very easy come up with a alternative stop whining and raise the funds. That is one of the strengths of our system we will use the cheapest reliable system we can. There are clean fission methods, solar, geothermal and others that need funding to get off the ground to be proven on full size systems. Put your money were your mouth is, and reach into your pocket I am.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 4:20:13 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
Perseus, I don't know how you define a meltdown if you don't think that the Chernobyl reactor had a meltdown. The core of the Chernobyl reactor melted and flowed down into the basement. In fact the steam explosion and subsequent graphite fires were more damaging than the meltdown. Wikipedia helpfully tells us that a meltdown is "generally considered a serious nuclear accident", they're certainly masters of understatement there in Wikiland.

The operators had no idea what was going on at Chernobyl, it was in no way an "accident that was contained before a meltdown took place". 20 years later there is still dispute about the exact sequence of events. When they later drilled a hole in the reactor pit all 180 tons of nuclear fuel was gone. Check out this photo of the "elephant's foot" one of the radioactive lava formations they found in the basment http://chernobyl.in.ua/en/disaster/9 The coloured dots in the photo are from the radiation it is still emitting (eek). I'd suggest you get your head out of the paper bag.
Posted by Johnj, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:10:32 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
Chernobyl was old technology for sure. But today's technology will be old technology in thirty years also. At what point can technology provide absolute assurance?

All technology has its risks, and in this debate we find one group seems to deny this, as though for some reason the safety engineers for nuclear power stations are far smarter than safety engineers in other industries.

It is difficult to accurately quantify the risks of nuclear power, but we can make a pesimistic argument which says that a reactor will fail from time to time. If that were one every fifty years, then we'd have three uninhabitable places on earth by 2100.

I wonder what the cost would be for an underground nuclear power station.
Posted by David Latimer, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:42:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some people sigh away Chernobyl by saying it happened so long ago. It is a mere twinkling of the eye. If the Romans had built Chernobyl, and it caught fire and spewed its caesium over Europe at the time of Christ, we would still be tending the sarcophagus over it today, two thousand years later. Ah, say some, we would use a different reactor to those Russians...but it didn't stop Harrisburg/Three Mile Island having a problem. It didn't stop General Electric trying to build reactors in the third world, in places like major earthquake fault lines...go figure.

The greenhouse costs of nuclear energy are enormous, mainly because their productive time for electricity is nothing compared to the cost of construction and the cost of decommissioning the reactors and the thousands of years of waste.

All of these facts are inconvenient for those who want to sweep away the dangers of uranium, the nuclear fuel cycle, and the threat to security. But there it is. Wishing the problem wasn't there, doesn't make it go away. Ask the people of Nova Zipcov, who have to use a geiger counter to check their vegetables are not irradiated, and who cannot return to their forests for 10,000 years...only look at photos of them pasted to their concrete walled homes, because their irradiated wooden homes were too unsafe.

Let's have the debate...but it's interesting how newspapers will only print one side of it.
Posted by Adrian, Thursday, 4 May 2006 12:18:55 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
I am not so sure that the technology has moved on a lot. Computerised control systems certainly have but the nuclear part of engineering was dropped out of uni courses in the 80's and a lot of the related skills are being lost. A friend's father in the US was a tradesman in a "nuclear bomb factory" he was recently brought out of retirement to show the younger generation how to machine the uncommon metals used in that industry into the shapes required by the equipment.

30,000 years is a very long time to store waste, if we factor in that cost will nuclear energy still be economic? The swedes build a very fancy waste repository near Stockholm. Will they need to move it due to rising sealevels.

The rising oil prices are forcing us to reevaluate the energy we use. Nuclear energy should be included in such an evaluation. But we should also include the cost of polution, global warming and storing waste products. As these are not readily measured in dollars and we live in a political climate that does not invest in the future I fear they will be omitted.
Posted by gusi, Thursday, 4 May 2006 1:08:01 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
Electricity from nuclear fission is not a viable solution to our energy problems. Milne is correct in pointing out the inherent dangers in the technology, which are accentuated by the fact that no matter how advanced the containment systems are, they are still dependent on human operators. Can they be trusted to perform adequete maintainence, be correctly trained, employ correct safety schemes, protect the equipment from malicious damage, and admit to their own mistakes? The answer cannot be yes, because humans are not like that.

Furthermore, there may be as little as 15 years left of high-grade uranium left to be mined (probably closer to 50, but still finite). Not to mention the considerable expense of energy in extractiona and refining of the ore, which puts lie to the claims of environmental friendliness given to nuclear power.

And finally, the extreme cost of plant construction, operation, insurance, maintainence, regulation, inspection, refuelling, reprocessing, waste disposal, and eventual decomissioning. Pro-nuclear advocates always talk about how safe a modern reactor is. They seem to ignore how outrageously expensive such a reactor is.

The debate isn't a choice between coal and nuclear power. There are many alternatives, from gas to geothermal to wind, tidal, wave (probably the least well known, but possibly best alternative source), and many more. Connected with grid storage and demand reduction, there is no need for either coal or nuclear.

Science, medicine and engineering/industry all have a need for a scientific nuclear program (ala lucas Heights), but for mass electricity generation, nuclear power is not the answer.
Posted by Booster, Sunday, 7 May 2006 6:03:07 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
I have copied the following two tables from the Royal Academy of Engineering web site. The cost of generating electricity-Acommentary.

Table 1 summarises the cost of generating electricity for the different ‘base-load’ plants
considered by this study.

Gas-fired CCGT 2.2
Nuclear fission plant 2.3
Coal-fired pulverised-fuel (PF) steam plant 2.5
Coal-fired circulating fluidized bed (CFB) steam plant 2.6
Coal-fired integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) 3.2

Table 1 Cost of generating electricity for base-load plant (pence per kWh)
(CCGT) = constructing combined-cycle gas turbine

Table 2 summarises the cost of generating electricity, with and without the additional cost of
standby generation, from the selection of renewable technologies considered by this study.

Without With
standby standby
generation generation

Poultry litter-fired bubbling fluidized 6.8 6.8
bed (BFB) steam plant
Onshore wind farm 3.7 5.4
Offshore wind farm 5.5 7.2
Wave and marine technologies4 6.6 6.6

Table 2 Cost of generating electricity for selected renewables (pence per kWh)

By this analysis nuclear generation of electricity is cost competitive.
Posted by anti-green, Sunday, 7 May 2006 8:16:45 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
There is some information that is not generally known about Chernobyl.
My source of this info was at a conference on nuclear energy in Vienna at the IAEC, later the UN organistion, in 1956.

At the conference the Russians presented a paper on the power reactors they had designed.

In the Q&A that followed it was pointed out to them that there was a design problem with the graphite moderators. The graphite stores up energy and under certain circumstances is released suddenly and could boil the water cooling.

It appears that the Russians knew better but this was exactly what happened at Chernobyl. I am told that no western reactors are of similar type. Whether the Russians have done something about it I have no idea.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 8 May 2006 6:37:52 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