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 > General Discussion > Nuclear power why not

Nuclear power why not

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Come tell me why not.
We sell fuel for such power plants to just about anyone.
We know surely while we say we will not use it some of our biggest trading partners will.
Far too often we fall for extremism, green, conservative and just madness.
Lets not kid ourselves the world is going to use this fuel so to will we.
Paul Howe's today opened what should be nation wide debate.
Those opposed to coal need to understand while it will cost this country billions coal will indeed in its present form not be used forever.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 5:45:04 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
Dear Belly,

You ask - "Nuclear power - why not?"

There are several reasons - the biggest being high costs -
and perceived dangers that have given nuclear reactors
such a bad reputation. One of the main fears is that
a "meltdown," at a nuclear reactor could release a great
deal of deadly radiation into the atmosphere, perhaps
before people in surrounding communities could be warned
and evacuated. Despite consistent assurance that nuclear
reactors are safe, opinion polls show that the public is
unconvinced - especially since the serious nuclear
accidents like Chernobyl.

There was a much greater accident that happened
near - Kyshtym in Russia in the late 1950s, spreading
radioactive debris over a wide area which is now believed to
be uninhabitable for centuries. The full story has never
been told, but the names of about 30 small towns in the
region have disappeared from Russian maps, and an elaborate
system of canals has been built, presumably to carry
rivers and other water systems around the contaminated area.

Another reason is that -
nuclear reactors produce notoriously hazardous wastes. Storing
this waste is a serious problem. Aging containers tend to leak.
What is needed is a place that will safely contain the waste
for at least 10,000 years, which supposedly is long enough
for most of it to decay. However the location of such a site
is a big problem, the obvious reason - that people are generally
unenthused about the prospect of having a radioactive dump
in their own neighbourhood.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 10:32:16 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
cont'd ...

The following website may be of interest:

http://www.logtv.com/films/chelyabinsk/

Chelyabinsk - the most contaminated place on the planet.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 10:42:14 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
Nuclear power is a thing of the past, just like coal and oil. All three have no lengthy future. And just like coal and oil it is a serious pollutant. This is because there is NO technology yet developed that neutralises nuclear waste. Nuclear power is non renewable, it's finite, just like oil and coal, and this is the main reason why it has no future. Let's stop depleting planet Earth. The future lies with the sun and wind. The technology to take advantage of these renewable resources gets better year after year. Renewable energy will eventually supply all of our energy needs. Within 100 years oil, coal and nuclear energy will be viewed 'universally' as old fashioned, wasteful and polluting. By then the world would have moved on.
Posted by MaryE, Thursday, 20 August 2009 2:13:28 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 said MaryE.

Belly, a nuclear power in this country would be a particularly bad idea largely because it will be implemented in a rush, once rising fuel prices really start to have an effect on our economy and quality of life. Corners will be cut, left, right and centre, in order to bring it online as quickly as possible.

We won’t even start to develop a nuclear power industry until conventional energy sources become highly stressed. This will very much be the wrong environment in which to develop such an incredibly dangerous power source.

It will then exist in a period of much social turmoil. You can bet that once peak oil really bites (and that means rising prices that affect the price of everything else, long before actual shortages of supply), things are going to get very ugly. Operating a nuclear industry in this situation would be enormously dangerous.

Even if a start was made this year, we’d probably well and truly be within this period of turmoil before the industry became established.

But the biggest problem of all is that the continuous rapid growth paradigm remains entrenched, which means that if we did develop a successful nuclear power industry, it would facilitate continuously increasing population, energy consumption and everything that goes with them.

Then, given that it is a finite resource with only a relatively small period of operation at a high and constantly increasing rate of consumption, it will leave us in need of new energy sources just a few years down the track.

If within a genuine sustainability paradigm, we needed an extra power source, after pulling right back on fossil fuels, developing alternatives to the best of our ability, and becoming a whole lot more frugal, then and only then there might be some merit in developing nuclear power, at a small scale of operation, as part of a mix of power sources. And only within a socially stable environment.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 20 August 2009 7:34:49 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
Belly, this one is an extreme case including plenty of the mistakes of the past but have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

There are still a lot of problems associated with disposal of the waste which is not just spent fuel, it's the reactor itself when it's decommissioned, it's the equipment used to work on the fuel and reactor, it can be the material used to cool the reactor, it can be soil from around the site, it can almost be almost anything involved in the process.

I'm concerned that we may find ourselves forced to use it at some stage but its non an option to take on lightly and it has the potential to leave massive problems for the future.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 20 August 2009 8:49:22 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 feel Nuclear power should be considered as a viable, long term energy source.

My only concern remains, like Robert, with the safe long term management of the wastes, in all its forms.

Certainly the industry has had "Accidents" but every "Industry" has had "Accidents".. the Longford Gas Plant Accident, for instance.

Commercial use nuclear power generation has been a FACT for the past 50+ years.

During that time, for an industry using technology which did not exist 70 years ago, it has developed and matured.

All of the anti-nuclear posturing is based on the politics of fear and needs to be balanced against the rapid development of process / handling / security changes which have evolved during this short span of time.

As we see, terrorists can take a car and turn it into a bomb. I see no sane person demanding we ban cars, fertiliser or petrol just to deny weapons to "terrorists".

If we are to believe the primary challenge facing humanity is Global Warming due to Carbon Emmissions, sufficient to justify the Federal Government force-feeding us a brand new tax, (I say "if" because, personally I do not think that case has in any way been proven) then Nuclear power becomes the most compelling alternative to coal and oil burning power stations.

The other alternative, we all wean ourselves off electricity useage, except for renewable sources (wind, wave etc), can be best described as the constructive intellectual contribution which could generally be expected from an ameoba.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 20 August 2009 11:32:50 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
Chernobyl was a disaster that should never have happened.
As I said on another thread the Russians were warned in 1956 that
their design had a flaw that ultimately bit back many years later.

My friend also tells me that waste radiation levels can be reduced by
very large amounts by reprocessing the fuel a number of times.

Here is an up to date article on nuclear fuel supply on the oil drum.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5677#more

It seems that 1/3 of fuel comes from nuclear weapons but that is
coming to an end.

If the number of reactors continues to increase then the peak uranium
date moves closer and will eventually mean that the life time of the
power station may become too short to be economic.

If we leave it too long it will not be worthwhile building a nuclear
power station. We could of course restrict exports of yellow cake.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 20 August 2009 1:26:12 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 read every reply think I agree more with col than others.
Waste is being generated, and will continue to be.
Some from product we sell to many country's, and some of ours finding its way to country's we do not wish to sell to.
We have even been asked to store other country's waste, and we will.
Five Mile Island was another failure, a near miss of massive size if it was not for luck.
Chernobyl? well second grade care in second grade hands it at least played a part in ending the cold war.
How can some be so confident coal is on the way out?
Or that petroleum is?
For that matter research just how many country's are planning to go nuclear.
Far from old it is and will be one of our main power production systems.
Coal is no further than 20 years away from becoming much safer to use, maybe in liquefied form, we will continue to use coal but in new ways.
New power may, well will change our world in the next 20 years, with help every one of us could right now be cut from the power grid with solar or wind generation.
But industry's we truly must keep are leaving because power is too costly.
We will use nuclear I am amused by the prospect of Labor finding a way to change its mind on this issue, but change it they will.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 20 August 2009 5:43:29 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
Hasn't this b*&*#y server error been fixed yet ?

Yes Belly, Labour will change its mind the day after there is a big
uproar because the lights went out.
Trouble is it will then take ten years to get it up and running.
Peak oil appears to have happened last year around May July and the
IEA now says the existing non Opec fields are depleting twice as fast
as they previously thought. The rate is now 6 1/2% per annum.
Regarding coal, well the German Energy Watch Group has put a date of
20 years to Peak Coal. Others seem to agree. They originally suggested
2025 a few years back.

Whatever, we have to do something about it and the Hirsch report said
20 years for a smooth transition to an alternative energy system.
However, we are now at -1 instead of + 20.

Do the pollies care ? I don't think so although I think they know
about it all, it is just that it is after the next election and who
wants to scare the horses ?
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 21 August 2009 1:34:45 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
WTF?
Get real. Its 2009 - we now know that nuclear energy will last 40 years tops. Sorry you have been duped.
Posted by WTF?, Friday, 21 August 2009 2:05:07 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
The simple meaning of the words 'non renewable' is, they are going to run out. Not 'may'; will run out.
That makes it 100% certain that one day we will be 100% reliant on renewable power supplies.
Currently, the arithmetic indicates the time will probably come within the lives of our children, certainly within the lives of our grandchildren.
We need oil and coal and maybe uranium to build wind turbines and solar panels. If we wait until all the oil and coal is gone before we push the panic button, what sort of lives are we condemning our grand children to?
Posted by Grim, Friday, 21 August 2009 8:37:51 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
first raised/..by thatcher..as a way..to shut down coal miners ...under the then guise of...global cooling...then ...it became warming..

but wouldnt you know it..we went through the cooling-stage..[temps didnt go up]

so..it became global-climate/change...the climate allways changes..[note winter/summer=climate change...they cant lose]but..you can/will

al-gore..owns one of the big..carbon-trading/houses...so he cleans up big-time.. when he pulls of his scam,

the scam is to get into..the tax payers purse...to get..a carbon credit[tax]...directly to big business...not via govt audit/process...but their hands direct in our pocketts..[on everything we buy and sell..

then limit the carbon credits..so they go up in price...25 to 50 bucks a ton..but we dont know what.....because govt gives them..to big business..then business..sells them on to forrest builders..[and the nuke industry/or wind power..

under the lie of green jobs...but while turbines wear out..solar cells just need to be dusted...spain went big on the green jobs...well the instalation of them[jobs] are gone..they have huge unemployment...because there aint no green jobs...

the sun /wind work for free...but..yet..power now cost double

the numbers have been wrong..[modeling is how they made the dinosaurs come to life in the movies]

this latest push... has the wiff of enron to it.

.[im noting big selloffs down under of electicity /water/roads etc]...but mostly how prices are rising fast for electricity/water/toll...all run by multinationals#

the whole issue is based on tissues of lies...there is no man made global warming...nukes are a finite resource...big business runs them for proffit...then goes bankrupt...

and guess who is left to pay for their cleanup...you sukkers...our biggest energy users are business [but they..get subsidised [ditto water]

we stopped using asbestos...when we found asbestosis in our media...when we hear of the radioactivity dumped globally..[in time] we will see we been scammed again...

damm your nukes...we dont need no more arms races

enough of big govt handing for proffit business cash handouts...no one can aford to build one privatly...govt allways subsidises...in this case they take the cxarbon credit/plus extra..govt subsidy...

a few multinational firms...coordinate the cash income..and bingo..cash flow till 30/50 years[maybe]..then govt cleans up the mess..dont say you didnt know
Posted by one under god, Friday, 21 August 2009 10:49:53 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
Fortunately WTF is wrong, Nuclear will give more than a century, as will coal, with no problems from either.

This is most fortunate, because none of this other stuff, wind, solar or hot rocks, used as we are currently trying, is going to cut it.

The proffit motive, rather than any government hand out, will lead to someone finding new power systems, quite possibly using the same gear, better.

Improvements in metallurgy, & lubrication, rather than mechanical design has seen an increase in the power output of the internal combustion engine of the order of 2000% in less than a hundred years.

I wonder what we will have learn before we will see the same increase in our ability to produce renewable power, in any realistic quantity.

Lets hope we don't waste too much effort, putting these useless windmills all over the place, in the meantime.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 22 August 2009 2:31:34 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
Hasbeen find the words stuck in my throat but I agree with you!
However why did you respond to WTF?
That name, the way it is intended to be read, and the way it is used shows you wasted your effort.
Just a rude dude on a mission was my only thought.
We will use this power, the world will we continue to find reasons to mine its basic needs and export them.
My hope?
Well one day in my view we will indeed find cleaner better fuels, maybe making this fuel unneeded sooner rather than letter lets hope I am right.
PS my spell check had the last word on finding WTF it gave me only one choice that I wanted ignore.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 22 August 2009 6:02:44 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
So uranium lasts 100 years.
Then what?
So coal lasts 200 years.
Then what?
When I was a teenager in the 70's, I had no fear of going bald. We'd just put a man on the moon for God's sake. A cure for baldness had to be too easy.
We need existing power supplies to create alternatives. If we wait until existing power supplies run out...
Our grandchildren are screwed.
Posted by Grim, Saturday, 22 August 2009 7:27:58 AM
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
WTF?
Hasbeen said "Nuclear will give more than a century, as will coal, with no problems from either."
You have been duped.
Maybe we should take a vote. All those who agree that there are no problems with coal and nuclear materials being used for energy please post.
If anyone can put forward even one factual statement to prove that there are NO PROBLEMS with either energy source then I will make this my last post on OLO.
Posted by WTF?, Saturday, 22 August 2009 9:38:22 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
WTF? can you put forward a post which proves that there are no problems with any specific energy source. No problems is a really big call. All the alternative energy sources which I know of still have negative consequences.

The issue becomes one of weighing the benefits vs the downside and trying to make reasonable decisions about what works. Unless we come up with a silver bullet (zero contamination fusion?) what we need will probably be a mix of technologies. I hope that we don't need fission mostly because of the waste issue but I also hope we don't need every hillside covered in wind generators, every powerfull river dammed for hydro, vast area's of the desert covered in thermal collection stations.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 22 August 2009 10:48:47 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
Belly
Why not Nuclear? three objective reasons.
1. Operational safety, Longford explosion = hand full of casualties. Fixed in a few months.
Chernobyl= the body count/pollution goes on.... Centuries.

One US reactor ('minor') leak released 100Ks gallons of radioactive water that is now in the ground water and is spreading over an ever increasing area. Strontium and thorium etc are now detected miles away from the leak.

The whole industry is prone to whoops' from start to finish. Tailings dams collapses, unaccounted material, Security breaches to the storing of waste.

2. How is it an improvement?
Fossil fuel= Finite resource
down side.... CO2
technical solutions against possible consequences on humans are possible.
duration of problems -perhaps a century if we do something now.

Nuclear= Finite resource
down side ...radioactivity, no defense, waste toxicity and remediation virtually impossible.

Radiation disrupts ALL life and ecological wed necessary for human life. No know solution.
duration of problems - potentially/probably indefinite. Capitalist short cut(expedience) can't be trusted.
There is no guaranteed method of storage of by products and waste. Synrock etc. are still in experimental stage or unproven or have their severe limitation.

3- Not business economical.
The economic/business argument is dubious it doesn't make business sense on its own.
Time lag -to set up the number of reactors required is 15-20 years (alternatives less time.) The viability depends on taxpayers signing a blank cheque. Subsidies and indemnities etc. (we pay?)
Life span of a reactor life span >40 year approx massive $ in decommissioning not including upgrades. Estimated to be more that establishment costs then site remediation (?) (not for food production or habitation)will be tax payer supported . Did I mention open ended waste storage costs again taxpayer funded?
Conclusion: Mass nuclear anything, especially power generation is a problem thousands to tens of thousands times worse than we have now. As in all things, sooner or later 'the piper must be paid' But much of the real costs are hidden in the debate.

There is no one magic bullet. It's time we realised this mass anything especially power generation are virtually obsolete.
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 22 August 2009 2:43:20 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
My first concern is that every project that governments plan
are built by the lowest bidder!
Posted by kendra, Saturday, 22 August 2009 4:00:22 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
R0bert
I agree with you my friend
Today more than 46 countries in our planet use Nuclear energy, some of them and percentage of their total energy.
Belgium 53.8%
France 76.2%
Canada 14.8%
Germany 28.3%
Japan 24.9%
Lithuania 72.9%
Sweden 42.0%
Switzerland 39.2%
United States 19.7%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

Do you mean that the people and the governments(left or right) from all these countries PLUS from many other countries are Idiots and ONLY WE ARE THE SMARTS?
These countries import the uranioum, we have it in our feet, Australia has the bigest quantity of uranium minerals in the world and we do not use nuclear energy!
Our nuclear minerals is one of our bigest national assets and we undervalued and underestimate them and we do not use them!
In many countries which use nuclear energy the persons is 300-400 people per sq klm and they do not worry In Australia is about 2.7 persons per sq klm we have not only the minerals but also huge deserts and not residential areas far of our main cities and we worry from accidents! Did any one asked for the type and maintenance of the Chernobil nuclear reactor?
Do you know any new technology without accidents?
There is a little problem with the nuclear weast but every year we make improvements on this problem, probably in the future we will transfer them to the space, asteroids etc.
We like it or not, soon or later we will use nuclear energy as did the most developed countries.
It is stupid to underestimate our minerals, to underestimate our national assets.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 22 August 2009 5:01:38 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
Are they dumb and we're smart? from my perspective possibly it is a matter of options. It is only in recent times that such things as the limitation of resources world wide were considered....People thought "there's always some where else to mine". Aso it is only recently that the flaws in our capitalist system have become 'widely know and understood'
By that I mean the world economy needs to expand and in order to do that we need more consumption and that has meant people. In this process what wasn't considered was space to grow, new areas to farm places to build houses and put our rubbish.
Contrary to common belief our mass system capitalist system creates upto a 60% waste. Both in garbage but also wasted produce and products etc.
As for the foolproof system ....that hasn't been invented yet. So long as humans are involved there will be stuff ups.
In the nuclear context one stuff up = thousands of deaths and almost for ever pollution of the surrounding ground. Read about Chernobyl and particularly its legacy.
N.B. one speck of strontium or thallium the size of any letter on this page in our food can mean cancers and probable death. Chernobyl released 100s of kg of the stuff over 100's of miles and radioactive particles with medium half life over thousands of miles.
Do you want the risk?of just One calamity screwing say half of Adelaide.
To implement this imperfect technology with even more imperfect humans the reactors need to be relatively close to where the people are. Given most Ausies live 100k from the sea on a narrow coastal plain and given the winds one bang could spoil more than an Aussie city.
While this is dramatic stuff history shows that leaks and whoops' will happen and give the above one sizable leak into Adelaide, Perth and many inland centers' groundwater would be a catastrophe. All the above rely on their groundwater to survive.
To me the risk is way too high.
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 22 August 2009 6:21:39 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
examinator
Can you tell me how many deaths per year we have in sweden of cause the nuclear energy and how many from car accidents?
Can you tell me in France what damage more our environment the Nuclear reactors or the cars?
Can you tell me what damaged more the Japan environment the nuclear reactors or the car industry?
Without doupts in all countries the deaths or the damage of the environment comes from the cars and car industry, not from nuclear reactors. Very low environment damages and near to zero human deaths.
Why do not you say to stop the car industry and the use of cars which cause so many deaths, wounds,and they damage so much the endironment but you are against nuclear energy?
Do not you know that we have plenty uranium minerals and it is for our benefits to promote them, or at least not to be against them more than all other developed countries?
WE LIKE IT OR NOT SOON OR LATER WE WILL USE NUCLEAR ENERGY, AT LEAST LET'S PREPARE OUR SOCIETY FOR THE COMING NUCLEAR ENERGY AND LET'S TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY, EVERY DAY WE HAVE IMPROVMENTS IN NUCLEAR REACTORS, FORGET THE CHERNOBIL IN A COLAPSED SYSTEM.
Do not sell our minerals for pinuts, they have much more higher value!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 22 August 2009 6:54:23 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
It is not generally recognised that there is more radioactivity
from a coal fired power station than from a nuclear power station.
The ash heaps should have radio activity warning signs.

The coal mining costs more lives than have been lost from Chernobyl.
How do you balance up one cost against another ?
None of this is simple, but we will have to face up to the fact that
there will be no base load solar or wind power or alternatives
except for geothermal.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 23 August 2009 7:54:12 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
AS,Bazz,

Chernobyl type bang is very unlikely and is not the issue as such.
My point was that regardless of technology it is operated/controlled by TWO unreliable elements.

People and capitalistic motivation.
If one examines all the nuclear whoops' the common element are the above.

Chernobyl was a case history on neglect, penny pinching (cost savings) and human error.

As stated to me the risk with nuclear is that its consequences are effectively for ever.
In Washington state one human error released contaminated water which has gone in to the ground water and has now affected hundreds of sq ks with potentially deadly radioactive isotopes.

Note also that the consequences various cancers etc. are never sheeted home to the root cause ...the research is never really done then there's the legal play pen the courts where the bully(richest) mostly wins. look at how long the tobacco industry got away with their deliberate lies....US companies kept steel radials out of US regardless of the death count.

AS with car accidents there are possible solutions, however, with nuclear there are no real solutions.Least of all long-term storage of waste and the hidden costs that we the tax payer will bear. A cynic might point out that we will be paying a premium to suffer and die while various o/s corporations make big profits..to me there is something wrong there in the logic.

Adelaide, Canberra, Perth etc all rely on groundwater in the event of a plausible leak and life in Adelaide would have a substantially elevated (unacceptable) health risk equivalent to Witanoon (WA asbestos mining town in the 50's and 60's) now a ghost town. One family I know from there has suffered 4 deaths from related cancers 30-40 years later.

Bazz, I didn't know that coal was THAT bad but it makes sense.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 23 August 2009 11:13:45 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
AS stand by mate, I agree! time will prove you and I are right.
We will use this fuel, soon, no later than the third term f Rudd's government will see back down planned nuclear power stations in this country, bettcha!
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 23 August 2009 2:12:29 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
Examinator,
The Chernobyl problem was none of these;

>Chernobyl was a case history on neglect, penny pinching (cost
>savings) and human error.

It was a design fault. It was pointed out to the Russians in 1956 when
they showed the design of the reactor to a conference at the IAEC in
Vienna. They chose to know better. The failure was exactly as they
were warned about.

The test they were running would not have caused the disaster if the
design had been modified as suggested.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 23 August 2009 4:51:17 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
Reactor accidents

The nuclear power plant design strategy for preventing accidents and mitigating their potential effects is "defense in depth"--- if something fails, there is a back-up system to limit the harm done, if that system should also fail there is another back-up system for it, etc., etc. Of course it is possible that each system in this series of back-ups might fail one after the other, but the probability for that is exceedingly small. The Media often publicize a failure of some particular system in some plant, implying that it was a close call" on disaster; they completely miss the point of defense in depth which easily takes care of such failures. Even in the Three Mile Island accident where at least two equipment failures were severely compounded by human errors, two lines of defense were still not breached--- essentially all of the radioactivity remained sealed in the thick steel reactor vessel, and that vessel was sealed inside the heavily reinforced concrete and steel lined "containment" building which was never even challenged. It was clearly not a close call on disaster to the surrounding population. The Soviet Chernobyl reactor, built on a much less safe design concept, did not have such a containment structure; if it did, that disaster would have been averted.

Risks from reactor accidents are estimated by the rapidly developing science of "probabilistic risk analysis" (PRA). A PRA must be done separately for each power plant (at a cost of $5 million) but we give typical results here: A fuel melt-down might be expected once in 20,000 years of reactor operation. In 2 out of 3 melt-downs there would be no deaths, in 1 out of 5 there would be over 1000 deaths, and in 1 out of 100,000 there would be 50,000 deaths. The average for all meltdowns would be 400 deaths. Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Sunday, 23 August 2009 5:10:58 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
Bazz
True but dials didn't work, valves seized (should have been replaced but weren't) parts were difficult to get long lead times etc....poor maintenance, workers were under trained , not enough safety equipment/procedures, skills and machinery wasn't upgraded or REPLACED known flaws weren't addressed(that in my mind,is a definition of penny pinching neglect/management failure.)
I envisage the same will happen with corporate profit chasing "neglect". (See Bopal, Longford) will inevitably infiltrate any entity sooner or later. Bureaucracy tends to over engineer and suffer from "galloping inertia". Commercialization tends to suffer from profit maximization by saving on maintenance and staff etc. Look at Telstra and the banks ....mass layoffs closing of branches service dropped alternatives popped up now both are re-instituting service.

Think air line industry... saves money with cheaper maintenance etc e.g. the one that lost its wheel on the tarmac stopped engineering inspections before every flight. In any accident there is always a confluence of causes that results in the disaster.
The weak link usually included a bean counting decision (human judgement) and human error. Reality things do go wrong the difference between an incident and disaster is preparedness but that costs.
The Victorian bush fires for example. The risk was known but 'so far so good' mentality prevailed.
A look at the environment and how our focus on the now is coming back to bite us. My question is can we afford that to be the inevitable SERIES of Nuclear whoops' and their inexorable CUMULATIVE effect?
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 23 August 2009 5:53:36 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
Belly
One time you asked me to come in Adelaide and discuss with me. I did not answered to you, may be later I can sent you an invitation when you come to adelaide to stay in my home, at the moment it is very mess!
About nuclear power, some say that nuclear energy is a capitalist issue this is not truth, nuclear energy have used in the communist china or in the past in the communist soviet block.
In west countries The Spanish socialists, the UK Labours, The Sweden Social-Democrats, the German Social-democrats or Obama support the use of nuclear energy, only Greens are permanently against the nuclear energy BUT they are a small minority and they will stack there if they ignore our needs for energy and better life.
Of cause there are some risks, we try to minimize them but we can not return to stone age, because greens are against nuclear energy.
Of cause we try to use more solar or any other reneable energy BUT WE CAN NOT IGORE OUR NEEDS IN ENERGY.
I do not try to seem good I preffer to prepare people for some future steps not popular but neccessary, IF I HAVE TO GO AGAINST THE WINDS I WILL GO, IF I HAVE TO GO AGAINST THE STORMS I WILL GO, IF I HAVE TO GO AGAINST THE WAVES I WILL GO, BUT ALWAYS I WILL TRY TO BE USEFULL FOR OUR PEOPLE AND OUR COUNTRY.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Monday, 24 August 2009 11:06:53 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
Antonios, I disagree
"Of cause there are some risks, we try to minimize them but we can not return to stone age, because greens are against nuclear energy."
If we continue to rely on and use up all our non renewable resources, a return to the stone age will be almost inevitable.
Is that all right with you, just because it won't happen in your lifetime?
Posted by Grim, Monday, 24 August 2009 11:54:24 AM
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
There is a highly emotional reaction to nuclear which is out of all proportion to the hazards.

This is similar to the visceral fear of sharks in the water, whereas drowning kills countless multitudes more.

Most of this has been dealt with in a parallel thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9290

What I see again in this thread are the same tired old myths being perpetuated:

1 - Future reactors will be built like the 1950s design chernobyl and have the same risks,
2 - Due to civil fuel rods having plutonium, reprocessing to yield weopons grade material is extremely politically sensitive. Reprocessing would reduce the volume of the high level waste by 25% and the radioactivity by up to 90%.
3 - Known reserves of low cost uranium in Gen I and II reactors would only be able to generate 100% of the world's electricity for 30 years, but existing Gen III reactors and slightly higher cost uranium would extend this to 2500 years. Gen IV and thorium would extend this to > 100 000 years.
4 - Compared to the No of people killed in the coal and gas generating cycle, nuclear has only a tiny fraction of the fatalities.
5 - Nuclear reactors take decades to build, of which most is getting political approval. Construction from start to generation is less than 5 years. Construction costs for large plants are about 60% more than for coal fired plants.
6 - Nuclear power presently costs about 2c /kWhr to generate, which while more expensive than coal is cheaper than gas and significantly cheaper than wind or solar.

Relevant reading:

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

If the existing government had the cajones to allow nuclear, the target of 30% reduction of GHG emission could be met easily without crippling the economy.

The ETS and renewable legislation is estimated to double the wholesale cost of electricity in real terms by 2015 based on the present No Nuke policy.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 24 August 2009 1:52:09 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
Grim “We need existing power supplies to create alternatives. If we wait until existing power supplies run out...
Our grandchildren are screwed.”

And

“If we continue to rely on and use up all our non renewable resources, a return to the stone age will be almost inevitable.
Is that all right with you, just because it won't happen in your lifetime?”

Ah the same economic assessment as promoted by Thomas Malthus ….

The exact same thinking which ignored the inventiveness of the individuals who developed the systems and processes which we use today….

Grim, I suggest. For the sake of your grandchildren and assuming you presently do not have children, you have an immediate vasectomy…

Speaking personally, I have every faith in the ability my children and grandchildren or their peers, to find a solution.

That solution will be sourced from the collective knowledge of humanity, which has expanded geometrically since the beginning of time.

“Optimism”: that quality which see opportunities, makes things happen and is the opposite of pessimism and “Grim”-ness.

However, in the meantime, I feel some constraint should be placed on people who recklessly breed -

So, Grim, make that "vasectomy": for the sake of your grandchildren and everyone else..
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 24 August 2009 3:08:48 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
Shadow Minister,
I agree that a Chernobyl style bang is extremely unlikely however, it is over simplification of the problem to dump it all on design flaws. Incidents are inevitably comprised of the confluence of several causes. However
All the whoops generally have a common element ..the human factor. Management , Maintenance and Motivations.
whoops' can't be ruled out of any gen reactor ....good planning should acknowledge this and plan for minimisation and remediation.

From there we face two issues of data the first is the lack of "credible" in depth long term studies of the cumulative effect of the serial "low level" whoops'. Neither are there as defined epidemiological studies of the the human effect on nuclear and or the coal impact.

Management...lack of training, safety gear or on site remediation facilities etc.
maintenance … frequency , depth and availability of parts at appropriate times
Motivation … commercial imperatives to increase profits. History shows commercial imperatives are base on increasing risks..cutting costs(corners)

And there lies the crux of the issue :-
There issue is not if but when and how big the whoops will be. Given there is no remediation for radioactive pollution ground water or land. The question is location. Given our population is situated around our limited water sources, and reactors need to be close the to both (?) certainly population. The question is can we afford the risk?
Two other factors are alternatives and cost

Cost: What is not discussed are the hidden costs to commercial nuclear generation. These are usually born by the public. The necessity for these extra costs indicate that the venture isn't a stand alone economic proposition.
These costs are covered in my previous posts.

The only debatable issue is alternatives . There is clear evidence that the final solution will be in a mix of generation methods.

Thus far it is those with vested mindsets, potential and existing pecuniary interests that are arguing the case . What is needed is an objective evaluation in the long term interest of the people not businesses.
Posted by examinator, Monday, 24 August 2009 4:21:44 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
So why do we continue to mine and export urainium if nuclear power is so bad.

On the one hand we don't want to toxicate our world, but on the other hand we are happy for someone elso to do it as long as they pay us for the urainum.

I tend to agree with belly. We realy have little alternative than to go nuclear, at least until some affordable alternative is found.

Remember, we would all be burning oil on a stick for light and feeding carrier pigions so we could communicate if not for inventions in the past.

Bring it on I say. I have a large block out bush, perhaps they can lease that from me for a dump hey!
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 24 August 2009 5:43:13 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
I'd say there is less uranium in the ground then there is coal.Coal/Oil are easier made by planet earth if we keep our forests.Lets get our smaller farmers back on the main river systems and produce some good organic food instead of present depleted food whilst burning coal for co2 production to feed the plants and any other life form.As far as powerstations are concerned,algae has some great benefits when it is grown near a station using its affluent/cooling water.
Posted by eftfnc, Monday, 24 August 2009 6:37:41 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
"Speaking personally, I have every faith in the ability my children and grandchildren or their peers, to find a solution."
I have to admit, I think it is very sensible of you to anticipate your children being smarter than you are, Col Rouge.
I'm not sure the enforced sterilisation of those who disagree with you is entirely original though... Perhaps you should give credit to your predecessors, where credit is due?
It is wonderfully convenient, having absolute faith that someone else will fix your stuffups -even when the solutions haven't been invented yet.
Yes, I think you're definitely right about your children, Col Rouge.
For those slightly less certain of their children's infallibility might I recommend this video:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4364780292633368976&ei=dP2LSorwAoKgwgPuruWpDg&hl=en
It's not about nuclear power, directly; it's really about simple arithmetic.
In summary, if you have steady growth of say 2% pa (which is the rate world energy consumption has increased pa since 1980) that means energy consumption will double every 35 years.It also means in each 35 year period, with each doubling, we will use more power (more non renewable energy) within that period, than all the previous periods put together.
Oh, and about Malthus? What a silly man, suggesting that if people keep multiplying, billions could starve.
How crazy can you get.
Posted by Grim, Monday, 24 August 2009 7:47:59 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
Ten years from now , when Prime Minister Rudd has found his way to back down and start to build our first nuclear power station.
The opposition leader Mrs Turnbull[ his wife not an insult] will say why are we so far behind the rest of the world?
We already are you know.
And yes much less uranium in the ground than coal, but surely it is understood how little compared with coal it takes?
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 5:48:30 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
Examinator,

In the 60s people became aware of the dangers of radioactivity and the consequences of a major incident. The codes for plant construction were revised so severely that the cost of the plants increased tenfold.

The major changes were that all systems were to be redundant and triple redundant where critical, stringent training and maintenance requirements, and finally a containment wall so strong that an aircraft could crash into it and not penetrate.

Comparing the Chernobyl reactor to modern reactors is like comparing the Wright brothers strut and cloth plane to a modern airbus.

A incident similar to chernobyl at a modern reactor would have caught by the redundant systems, and even if there had been further multiple system failures, the containment wall would have meant that you could have had a picnic outside with no risk.

These low level "whoops" to which you refer are almost always system failures that are caught by the redundant systems, or internal leaks that never escape to the outside. Long term cumulative studies would be pointless.

Like wise reactors don't have to be close to population any more than the coal fired stations do. However, given their ability to generate drinking water from seawater using the waste heat, it would not be a bad idea.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 6:49:55 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
Grim “It is wonderfully convenient, having absolute faith that someone else will fix your stuffups -even when the solutions haven't been invented yet.”

1 Our “stuff-ups” – or do you absolve yourself for using electricity and if you do… where does your PC get powered from?
2 Thomas Malthus used similar criticism of those who had the foresight to challenge his reasoning and was, clearly, equally as wrong as you.

“Perhaps you should give credit to your predecessors, where credit is due?”

Well I am the product of my predecessors genes so there is credit there… but I am not so sure what “credit” your predecessors could claim.

“I'm not sure the enforced sterilisation of those who disagree with you is entirely original though”

Maybe you could identify where I suggested your vasectomy should be “enforced”… putting words into other peoples statements is not good debating… I suggested you seek sterilization without qualification (voluntarily), for the sake of future generations and to save your own offspring the anguish of existing with the burden of being born with such a “grim” and pessimistic outlook on life.

“Oh, and about Malthus? What a silly man, suggesting that if people keep multiplying, billions could starve.”

Yes but Malthus ignored the “uninvented” developments in farming technology, disease control, medical research and a plethora of other changes which made the number of people being supported on the planet grow exponentially. Malthus even missed the “oil” revolution and had no concept of either a humble motor car or telephone.


I would agree the extent of human population numbers will seriously deter future "life quality" but the expectations of "life quality" considered common these days is something which Malthus would have been completely ignorant of.

Like you said “How crazy can you get.”

Yes well….… “How ignorant can you be?”

In Grims case, as ignorant as Malthus.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 9:02:44 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
Shadow minister,
Your point about Chernobyl has been noted but you still ignore the facts Chernobyl to me highlighted the human element.
Poisoning of the ground water in The US has occurred from two Gen 3 reactors.

France has also had triple system failures. Perhaps you need to consider the airline industry as an example human element failures..or perhaps the oil industry...One could ask by what means do you seem to assert that human nature and motivation will be different in the nuclear power industry?

Likewise "pro nuclear" lobby have no defense against the fact that the industry will need massive support from the tax payer....subsidies guarantees, ongoing waste storage,decommissioning, mothballing costs of spent reactor and site/whoops remediation No where in the world has a commercial entity covered all these costs.

What effective nuclear remediation methods are there? ones that guarantee say 50% success. With the right controls (which effectively don't exist) the fossil fuel industry has bio, chemical and mechanical remediation methods. the human element (corporate imperatives etc) always hobble the possible.

Why then would we want to take the clear risk with a non solvable problem?

The commercial reality regarding spares manufacture and timely supply is another failure point (see Chernobyl history on malfunctioning dials valves etc). As the reactors age the real profit shifts to the newer reactors.

I ask if the same funding was expended on less toxic alternatives they too may be just as viable.

Likewise decentralized generation and a mix of technologies will probably turn out to be the best for the people. As opposed to the C19 solution big, centralized,profit maximized opportunities is always the best.

In the interest of a rounded objective discussion it would be nice if pro nuclear were to answer my points...(NB not necessarily criticisms).

In essence I am calling for an open mind approach that thinks laterally out of vested interest's frame work and objectively considers all options. eg vertical wind generation, tidal, hot rocks solar panels and furnace the lot. So far it hasn't been done.
I await to read pro team to address these issues properly.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 9:51:36 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
any alternative energy supplier has clearly a vested intrest in their prodiuct being used...nukes as much as petro chemicalor wind power..its all multinationals selling us their product[on their grand scale....we used to have many small suppliers[local coincils ran them and water for pennies

but they have all been shut down...turned to thearters of the mindless

anyhow the joe fuel cell has liquid water HH20...that neutralkises radiation instyantly/...its a unique fuel replacement that runs petro moters on water...via a system of stainless steel circles under self sustaining electololic sepperation of elements...

that run the petro by vacume inlue of explosion...the only modification needed is to advance timming to the compression stroke[25 degrees]...then drive your vehicle petro free
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 10:38:19 AM
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
Examinator,

"Poisoning of the ground water in The US has occurred from two Gen 3 reactors."

Considering that the US has as yet no GenIII (high safety) reactors, this is unlikely. However, perhaps you could refer specifically to the incidents, so that we could be on the same page.

The failures within the new generation systems have not as yet led to the escape from site of any radiation, and serious failures should be close to non existent.

"Furthermore, core damage frequencies for these reactors are generally in the range of 1 core damage event for every 15-20 million years of operation " and even then, very few would see any radiation escape.

The comparison to airline industry is reasonable, but the MTBF of a nuke reactor is about 100 time longer than that of a Boeing.

There are about 15000 passenger planes flying and 438 reactors in service.

Assuming that there are 3000 reactors in service to provide 100% of the electricity, this would relate to one major incident every 200years. And with the containment vessels it is estimated that only the very worst would result in radiation escape.

The main reason that investors are unwilling to invest in nuclear is because of the political risk. Some plants have been built and met all the safety requirements, but have been shut due to protest. Those who have invested the money have made money. When there is the political will i.e. gov money invested, the returns are there.

I think money needs to continue to be invested in renewables, as we may well be able to provide much of what we need from these technologies. However, I doubt whether it will be in time to have an effect on climate change.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 3:28:27 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
We are behind a lot of the world in nuclear power
We are going to be further behind.
But we are going to use it sooner rather than later.
We and the world will do a much better job than past failures.
But we may well have them.
We however will use nuclear.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 5:39:20 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
SM
My bad no gen level was mentioned but one is quoted as being in the latest batch..I assumed it was gen 3, perhaps not.

Re my point of public purse mining...Are you telling me that power generators don't demand access to financial guarantees, subsidies and input from the Tax payer? I thought the point of capitalism was return for capital risk and effort.

Which commercial corp has accepted the full cost of any remediation of a site without "negotiating" the tax payer pick up a substantial part of the bill without resort to delaying actions in courts etc.? Hardies, Exxon, Bopal owners, big tobacco?

Are you saying power Generators are more socially responsible regardless of the unexpected costs?

US corp history wouldn't support that...Let's be real odds are that any commercial reactor would come from and be running would be awarded to a US Corp.
Again their record in commercialization of facilities Aust isn't good.

Which Nuclear power generating Corp has
a. Paid the full cost of remediation of a spent site.
b. Paid the full cost of indefinite storage of the waste?
c. What is the remediation method that is 60% effective....given that thorium (pick the radioactive element) from the a reactor including the non existent gen 4 reactors the size of any letter on this page wouldn't be 90% probability of being fatal.
d. Where are the long-term epidemiological/environmental studies that show the cumulative effect of the serial whoops' that have taken place...forget the theoretical infallibility argument that is an act of faith not fact.

So far, You are living up to your pseudonym, you're putting unreasonable credence in the terms like "world's best practice", and triple redundancy which are code for 'profitable' and "trust me"...rhetoric.

To me it's much like the GM argument the technology may be proven largely benign but I (with cause) distrust the purveyors of both.

By no mean am I wedded to a 'Not in my world' view. All I ask is less
self serving spin and wiggle proof solutions to a few basic issues.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 6:35:50 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
Ten years from now , when Prime Minister Rudd has found his way to back down and start to build our first nuclear power station.

Gotta give it to ya Belly. Never let a chance go by to give a good old politicle plug for your beloved Krudd.

S--t, I mean Gee Wizz I hope you're wrong! I can't say what I really mean as although it is almost 2010, it is just to rude!
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 10:14:45 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
Aagh……move on move on people, nothing’s changed in the nuclear industry. Obfuscation prevails. Independent critiques, published by eminent scientists are described as hyperbole and exaggeration but hyperbole (not exaggeration) is preferable to silence which is what you get from the nuke industry - same old same old slugs and slimy!

If you want uranium oxide for the killer machines, you will have to extract a minimum 150,000 tonnes of rock and ore (releasing massive amounts of carbon)to get 24 tonnes of enriched UF6 for fuel (UO2), merely enough for one reactor for a year plus 146 tonnes of depleted uranium which has in recent years, been recycled to bomb the crap out of the Persian Gulf, Iraq and the Balkans:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5146778547681767408

With a renaissance of a water hungry nuclear industry, each single reactor will consume 35-65 million litres of water each day. Olympic Dam Uranium mine uses 35 million litres/day from the Great Artesian Basin – free of charge too!:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25943922-2682,00.html

As the atomic blasts increased in the past so did radiation cancers and they continue to do so. The entire world has suffered from radioactive fallout carried on prevailing winds.

Decay chains of radioactive fallout are short or long – many existing for thousands of years. The NSW Cancer Institute, last year, advised that the last decade has seen a 40% increase in thyroid cancer in men and a staggering 84% increase in women. There is a paucity of research and the best government departments can offer as a cause for the increase, is lack of iodised salt in diets. Hmmmmmm!

Nevertheless, scientists today are investigating thyroid cancer levels in Corsica, a Mediterranean island that is half French, half Italian territory. For one week the radioactive cloud from Chernobyl hovered over Corsica. Cesium 137 levels in goats' milk reached toxic levels, but the fact was kept quiet. Today, thyroid cancer rates in Corsica are much higher than on the mainland.

Sheep in Wales continue to become radioactive after grazing, 23 years after Chernobyl. I trust none slip through to the supermarkets!

An industry ever so foul!
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 2:52:13 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
“In Grims case, as ignorant as Malthus.”
Col Rouge, I'm amazed. I had you picked for a Malthusian. Being so much less ignorant than I, I am sure you would be familiar with Malthus's stand on public assistance to the poor. He proposed the gradual abolition of the poor laws by gradually reducing the number of persons qualifying for relief. He reasoned that poor relief acted against the longer-term interests of the poor by raising the price of commodities and undermining the independence and resilience of the peasant. In other words, the poor laws tended to "create the poor which they maintain”.
To me, that sounds very much like something you'd say, Col Rouge, as is:
“... As the human race, however, could not be improved in this way without condemning all the bad specimens to celibacy, it is not probable that an attention to breed should ever become general.”
I also found this comment of yours quite helpful:
“ Malthus even missed the “oil” revolution and had no concept of either a humble motor car or telephone.”
Modern agronomists have been known to claim “modern agriculture is about using the land to turn oil into food”.
You may recall we were discussing the use to total depletion of non renewable resources, like oil?
And I do appreciate being lectured on good debating practice by someone who so famously and invariably resorts to personal invective, in every debate.
Malthus's knowledge was incomplete, just as Isaac Newton's was (and every scientist's continues to be). This in no way invalidates his contribution to science, or his influence on many consequent thinkers of great note, including Darwin and Wallace. As Albert Bartlett has demonstrated, the arithmetic is undeniable; only the time frame is in question.
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 7:04:14 AM
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
Examinator,

All these issues of Corporate responsibility are an obfustication. By playing the companies instead of the issues, and by dredging up anecdotal information on past misdeeds the anti nuke movement is trying to show that the power companies cannot be trusted.

What is forgotten is that corporates will primarily follow self interest, and if the legislation is in place to ensure that being socially responsible is good business, then this will happen.

The political system has put in place such stringent safety regulations that nuclear is probably the safest power generator, with fewer fatalities per kWhr than any other technology even wind.

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml

The new GenIII reactors have many "fail safe" features that the present GenI and GenII reactors don't. i.e. in the event of systems failure, the plant will revert to a safe condition without the requirement of intervention.

Without the facts your distrust is emotionally based as is the fear of flying, or of sharks in the sea.

The proposed 0.2c /kWhr tax on nuclear power being proposed, should cover the decommissioning and storage of waste by a central body.

The chapter on waste disposal should clear up most of the myths around storage times required. 1000 years is sufficient for the most active isotopes to decay, and the radiation levels are 0.00001% of what they were coming out of the reactor.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 8:58:14 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
Uranium miners, in the 21st century cannot be trusted. Currently 100,000 litres a day of radioactive tailings solution is leaking from the Ranger mine into Kakadu. Regulations stipulate that the tailings dam lining must endure for 100 years. Huh?

While the National Pollutant Inventory publishes the atmospheric emissions of carbon, heavy metals etc discharged by pollutant companies, radiation emissions from uranium mines are kept confidential. On request of these measurements, one is given the run-around. Why so?

Regulators are incompetent. The ignominious neglect by regulators is documented throughout this nation, no more obvious than the 2007 poisoning of Esperance by a lead company. The Port of Esperance and Magellan mines were charged with criminal negligence - but not the regulators.

As a result of regulatory "enforcement", this decade we saw the largest chemical fire in Australia's history from a hazardous waste plant in Bellevue Perth. The carcinogenic hazardous groundwater plume is now resting in the Helena River, a tributary of the Swan river which is on life support.

The cost of cleaning up the nuclear industry in the UK is now in the vicinity of 80 billion pounds and the cost blowout estimate for the Yucca Mountain repository in the US, $96 billion - up from $53 billion in 2001 and the repository is not in operation. Furthermore, Barrack Obama does not believe the Yucca Mountain is suitable for the disposal of the massive volume of radioactive waste, languishing in sheds around the nation.

"After four years of construction and thousands of recorded defects and deficiencies, the price tag on the reactor in Olkiluoto, Finland, has climbed at least 50 percent:"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html

Nuclear reactors in numerous European countries have been periodically taken off-line or operated at reduced output in recent years because of water shortages driven by climate change, drought and heat waves.

Nuclear utilities have also sought and secured exemptions from operating conditions in order to discharge overheated water. The nuclear industry discharges their contaminated wastewater into oceans, lakes and rivers.

Mass protests in France and elsewhere continue:

http://www.cane.org.za/2008/11/04/nuclear-energy-related/mass-protest-march-against-uranium-one-the-mystery-behind-low-level-radiation/

http://blog.taragana.com/n/jaduguda-residents-object-to-renewal-of-uranium-mining-lease-66237/
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 11:55:19 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
Protagoras
I know that in this issue you are very strong.
As wrote in other post most if not all developed countries use the nuclear energy.
The main political parties of the developed world as conservatives, labours, social-democreats, socialists or communists support the nuclear energy.

Today more than 46 countries in our planet use Nuclear energy, some of them and percentage of their total energy.
Belgium 53.8%
France 76.2%
Canada 14.8%
Germany 28.3%
Japan 24.9%
Lithuania 72.9%
Sweden 42.0%
Switzerland 39.2%
United States 19.7%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

I understand that there are few risks but they are many times smaller than the risks of other kind of energy or other kind of industries.

You know, we will use the nuclear energy as all the other countries and we have one more reason to do it as we have plenty minerals.
Instead my friend to scare the people it is better to make specific suggestions how to improve the law and incsrease the safety of the nuclear reactors.
I know you are good in this subjiect and you can be usefull but DO NOT TRY TO SCARE THE PEOPLE, IF WE HAVE TO IGNORE A SMALL MINORITY WE WILL DO IT!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 12:19:09 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
My dear Ant

I do not scare the people for I am merely the messenger. The information I provide is not a figment of my imagination for I derive that information from other sources.

What would be far more prudent Ant, is for you (and the nuclear industry) to address and acknowledge the information that I and others provide rather than throw the red herrings. If you are able to prove that this information is false or incorrect, then we may be able to have a reasonable debate.

I have been researching this industry since gaining access to the Health Department's inventory for the Mt Walton low-level radioactive waste repository (west of Coolgardie WA) where the inventory advised that they have interred two lots of plutonium at that respository - over two decades ago.

The uranium industry in Australia lacks transparency and integrity - it has to because you cannot mine uranium without catastrophic consequences - insidious as they may be.

You and I are the pawns Ant - you, more than I.
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 12:36:42 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 don't believe you are ignoring a small minority, Antonios. I think you are ignoring all the members of the Human Race who are yet to be born.
I'm hoping that will be a vast majority, aren't you?
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 1:52:20 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
Protagorass,

Considering that in the last thread, you never responded to one issue raised by anyone else, and your posts consist of snippets of information out of context and vague and irrational commentry, it is a little rich to try and hold others to standards you continually ignore.

What is amusing about your posts is firstly your lack of technical knowledge, and secondly your failure to read the links that you post.

For example:

The mass protest to which you refer is HR related one by workers retrenched and wanting their jobs back.

I look forward to your future cut and paste research.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 2:10:04 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
Protagoras,
SM is using standard POLITICAL diversionary tactics,
> answering the question he want to answer
> dismiss anything he has issues with as irrelevant
> Ignore what is actually asked.
> Impugn the motives of the questioner.

NB I said >> By no mean am I wedded to a 'Not in my world' view. All I ask is less self serving spin and wiggle proof solutions to a few basic issues.<< he also ignore other clear statements, indirectly accusing me of obfuscation and fear....
I did question some statement he made, but ignore the request for clarification.

The next tactic is to huff it. watch.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 4:07:57 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
Protagoras
“Uranium miners, in the 21st century cannot be trusted.”
“Regulators are incompetent.”
“I do not scare the people for I am merely the messenger.”

You sound more like a pocket Robespierre than any messenger
Which does not induce me to believe you

But even if you happened to be right

Maybe you will attempt to rectify all the ills of the world.

So I am sure you will be right up and on the front line -
when the cynical inherit the earth…

which will be after the meek have finished with it

and the meek are not going to be running anything any time soon.

In the mean time, real people dealing with the issues of their lives will decide –
through promoting a more libertarian government

than the current swill (unfortunately not before the socialists have run up a debt for our grandchildren to finish paying off)
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 5:06:19 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
Fact is we are mining more uranium.
And selling more to more country's.
Even if we do not use it more of the world will than will not.
No party, other than the greens, can forever say the rest of the world got it wrong we will not use it.
We will use it Rudd is the man who will introduce it, in his next term or the one after.
rechtub, regards bloke, in a friendly way not sneering at you just pulling your chain, your pain is not stopping Rudd's third term.
Still think Mrs Turnbull is a chance at leading your mob, her husband is not the one thats for sure.
Greens? well every day they make statements like todays about he 50 billion gas sales .
I just can not agree with the radical actions they put in front of nation.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 6:27:40 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
Did you see lateline last night and the argument by Garrett?
He raised some valid points about gas and even alluded to the cost of support to set up Nuclear power. But he made a clear point about waste storage and the inherent danger of it.
Belly you might be wise to to research the 'hidden' costs and risks of Nuclear anything.
NB we don't have any effective method of cleaning up after a spill or the site. And we don't have a foolproof way of waste storage either high or low level waste. In short Nuclear is effectively for ever.
All other sources allow technical/chemical/mechanical solutions, for the inevitable Whoops some where in the chain, from the ground and back.
I'm not against just unconvinced. Risk management logic suggests that with 2 of the 3 elements currently unsolvable look for alternatives.
'she'll be right attitude' with permanent issues is simply one risk too many.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 27 August 2009 10:04:04 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
Examinator et al,

You have yet to answer or respond to the issues I raised. I have given answers to the issues you raised, probably not in the format you would have liked, as due to the word limits I can’t address everything you raised from past generations with 20/20 hindsight.

The topic is about whether Australia should proceed and build modern nuclear reactors and waste handling systems. The Gen III reactors resemble the Gen I (Chernobyl) reactors in the way that modern 747s resemble the Kitty Hawk.

Anyone familiar with process control understands the difference between passive safety and active safety, but for the layman I should give a brief description:

Actively safe requires action to be taken to render something safe.

Passively safe means that in the absence of any action, the system reverts to the safe state. This is the holy grail of safety engineering, and normally requires fundamental changes in design concepts.

Gen I and Gen II reactors are actively safe, but the new Gen III reactors are passively safe. This means that failure can only occur if deliberate action is taken to over ride the triple redundant controls and force the reactor into an unsafe state. In spite of that, the containment vessels are so strong that they could contain a massive blast with little to no leakage. Also the handling of the coolant is such that escape to the atmosphere or ground water is nearly impossible.

The next issue is that of waste handling, reduction and storage.

Reprocessing is performed safely in France and Japan and not only vastly reduces the quantity and radioactivity of waste, and extracts useable fuel (reducing the need for mining), but has been restricted in the US largely because of the extraction of weapons grade plutonium.

To this end, it is generally agreed that reprocessing and storage should be federally controlled and managed, and a tax of 0.2c a kWhr should be sufficient to cover the decommissioning, and waste handling for the life span of a reactor. This should cover the responsibility issue you raised earlier.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 27 August 2009 11:35:42 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
Shadow Minister,
Thank you for your response.
And yes I am aware of the differences between active and passive and that gen 3 is better than preceding generations etc. These were givens. Chernobyl and airlines are relevant only as examples of the human element in "mass" thinking.

What seems to have been misunderstood was the point of asking the questions I did was NOT so much to decry nuclear as a source of power generation. Rather to set the ground work for the NEED for an objective(as opposed to a balanced discussion [read polarised opposing ideological rants]) discussion on all the options.

To do this I needed to get past the notion that Nuclear option was infallible and therefore nothing else needs consideration.

re your tax solution. if the reactor has a finite life it therefore has a finite ability to raise the funds for remediation,the site, indefinite security for both the site and storage of waste without also mining the public purse.

Rationally when assessing the risk and cost of any solution potentially one with a indefinite period of risk, one objectively should cost and assess all associated risks from the ground to the ground.

It is now apparent that the problem with the Capitalist(corporate) model is that it doesn't cost or assess the associate cost inputs (magic pudding mentality). These unassessed/uncosted consequences are the primary reason for the need for this evaluation.

Therefore if we were to assess the costs/risks all the issues reflecting to AUSTRALIA for both Nuclear and (as I favour) a decentralised mix of gas and renewable then compare them without preconceptions I am currently unconvinced that the latter wouldn't be a better option...
Thus far costings tend to be non-specific and theoretical.

I think it's time we seriously and critically examine the C19 model that big/centralised is best , before we go down that route now!I point to the inflexibility of GM/Ford and as sites as points of catastrophic single point failure.
NB the IT industry and how decentralised processing has arisen. and the principals maybe apposite as a model for power generation.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 27 August 2009 1:50:17 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
Examinator,

The waste issue is not as indefinite as you imply.

The spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive to begin with, but as the worst isotopes decay this reduces radically. i.e. after 40 years, the levels are 1000th of those on removal.

If waste is reprocessed, the final product will reduce in radioactivity levels to the same orders of magnitude as the original uranium bearing rock within 1000 years.

Although these are long time periods, they are manageable.
This waste is usually glassified into a non soluable non reactive form (i.e. cannot affect ground water), and after 1000 years can be either be reused or disposed of in less high security areas.

Basic information can be found here:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html

Likewise decommissioned reactors with no fuel have medium levels of radio activity, but due the shorter half life, reduces to safe levels within 100 years.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 27 August 2009 4:54:42 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
SM,
AS i understand the issues involved as at now synrock and glassification has both limitation and as yet it isn't perfected.
But that aside.
The real topic is an objective assessment of all options is what I am after.
So far all we've gotten is a corporate perspective which as you have pointed out serves their interests that is not necessarily in the best interests of Australia.
I have said already it seems based on my reading the best alternative may be decentralised, distributed power generation utillizing a range of actions and methodology, other that the big business model from the C19th.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 27 August 2009 5:48:00 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
Examinator,

Fair enough.

I strongly believe that action needs to be taken to reduce the GHG emissions and I have never claimed that nuclear is the only solution. Renewables can make a significant contribution, but this contribution will reach a ceiling of between 20% and 40% unless they can provide base load which presently neither wind nor solar can at anywhere near reasonable costs. (Molten salt is possible but presently prohibitively expensive)

The only renewable technology that can provide continuous power is the hot rocks being worked on in South Australia. However, even if a functioning plant can be built, there are several logistical issue that could render it still borne.

The highest on the list is its need for vast quantities of fresh water to make up the losses in the rock fractures of about 15% per cycle. The next is the small scale of the generation, presently 5MW per site, which means high capital costs per site and for reticulation.

These are not just "technical" problems that can be solved by a couple of brilliant engineers, but are inherent.

This means that we can meet the 20% 2020 targets with considerable effort and expenditure, but at that point will start hitting a glass ceiling.

Once we get past the "chicken little" approach of the anti nuke protesters, we could conceiveably reduce GHG emmissions by 90% by 2050 by using a combined approach.

Using renewables only, we are unlikely to pass 30%.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 28 August 2009 9:38:29 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
SM,
Thank you
I agree that the "chicken little approach" is less than helpful.
The problem as I see is two fold the discussions thus far are clearly two ideological groups firing artillery from their respective trenches.

Secondly the political PARTIES are adopting the easier political flawed route of allowing self serving corporations to dictate the terms. The result is a theoretical biased discussion. Disturbingly "he who has the clout does the planing and dominates" the discussion.
Regardless of the overall good this is the basis of the magic pudding syndrome.

In my mind I wonder if say the govt were to mandate/encourage alternative like they do with roof insulation smoke detectors etc whether that mightn't reduce the base load.

I am aware of what base load is etc. Blue sky with me for a moment: if we were to all or most of us to have vertical column wind turbines and solar panels. This would stimulate a huge market therefore manufacturing jobs and cheaper appliances. If we were to add to that A mix of all the other alternative methods of generation. I would suggest that with natural gas generation there would be less need for nuclear perhaps two maybe three would suffice.
Clearly there would be local variations to the mix of generation.

Ultimately I believe our governments needs to accept the responsibility of planning grid structures and the specific needs and then decide what parts go commercial what co-operative or govt owned.
Logically until the structure is defined how can one cost it?
Along with logical inanity "big is always better" mentality, "extreme generalities" (over (ab)use of statistics) and the irrationality of "corporate is always best" is their any wonder were in the mess we are.
If one ran/planed a company using the same criteria we would either go broke or be hounded out of office.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 28 August 2009 11:23:16 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
Examinator

SM claims: “Once we get past the "chicken little" approach of the anti nuke protesters, we could conceiveably (sic) reduce GHG emmissions (sic) by 90% by 2050 by using a combined approach. “

Meanwhile, Switkowski who headed the Uranium, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review claimed that “deployment of nuclear power could see 25 reactors producing about a third of the nation’s electricity by 2050.” Twenty five nuclear reactors operating by 2050? Ahem! (SM will be miffed to discover that I don’t have a need to “cut and paste” since I have the manual – all 288 pages.)

Dr Ben McNeil, a Lecturer and Research Fellow at the Climate & Environmental Dynamics Laboratory at the University of New South Wales has found several flaws in the Switkowski review:

“The EPRI also found that nuclear energy in Australia would be 10-15% higher than the US, given ‘Australia has no nuclear power experience, nor physical or regulatory infrastructure’.Despite these EPRI findings, the Switkowksi review reports costs for Australian nuclear energy to be 35-50% lower, concluding: ‘For settled down costs and moderate commercial risk akin to other baseload investment, nuclear power could fall within the cost range of A$40- 65/MWh.’

"These Switkowski review cost estimates were on the lower end of the spectrum, despite Australia having a non-existent nuclear industry and regulatory environment and no skilled experience in nuclear construction. Nor did the Switkowski review report on the recent experience of nuclear energy economics in similar markets to Australia. So it is important to question the viability of those particularly optimistic cost estimates:”

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/publications/McNeil.JAPE.pdf

Well worth the download here: "The Nuclear Illusion,” Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheik:

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf

In addition, SM’s glowing report on glassification (sic) does not apply to the vitrification process for immobilising hazardous waste, Synroc , invented in Australia in 1978, which until 2005, had not secured a commercial contract anywhere in the world.

In April 2005, Synroc was selected for a multi-million dollar "demonstration" contract to eliminate five tonnes of plutonium-contaminated waste at British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield plant, in the UK. I’m unaware of the outcome if any.
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 28 August 2009 1:19:08 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 done Protagorass.

Once again your inability to read /understand what I wrote has got you tilting at windmills again. What does conceivable mean, or combined approach? I did not mean that it was in any way likely.

Considering that the French built nuclear reactors to supply 70% of their electrical generation in about 20 years, it is entirely possible. (total now is 58 reactors in about 30 years) so yes 25 reactors is more than possible in 40 years.

That they reduced the cost by building standardised plants was a huge improvement over the US model.

They are presently generating electricity in the region of A$50 per MWhr including all capital and waste handling costs and has nearly the lowest cost of electricity in Europe. The EPRI estimate would put the cost at $50 to $75 per MWhr

Considering that renewable presently is in the region of $130 -$200 this is not bad (about 1/3rd)

I am sure that Dr Ben McNeil, a Lecturer and Research Fellow at the Climate & Environmental Dynamics Laboratory is the correct person to comment on the nuclear energy report. Is it possible he might have his own agenda? Ya think?

The cookie cutter approach using French designed plants would rely on local expertise for the civil and piping contruction with French reactors installed. No one would seriously consider designing reactors here. Australia has as much nuclear experience as the Amish have electronic experience due to our heads in the sand policy.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 28 August 2009 2:42:21 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
Protagoras,
Thanks for the site...clearly the information I was reading although along the same lines was more dated hence my assumptions about the gen3 sites.

Notwithstanding the articles virtually confirmed what I was saying albeit more professionally.

I would still like to see an objective analysis of a mix of technologies in line with my suggestions.
Given the unestimated cost difference between the network infrastructures costs necessary to maintain both systems and I suspect they would favour the distributive system.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 28 August 2009 5:38:57 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
While the debate about why we should or should not do it has kept my interest we are not talking about those who are going to go nuclear.
Uranium will be mined it will be used, waste will be generated like it or not.
So very many country's intend or are using nuclear power.
We may even it has been proposed, store others waste here.
I have faith mankind can use it without killing ourselves.
And that we will, coal is driving our economy but it one day will not be used , not in its current form.
We see alarmist talk about coal, peak oil, and nuclear, what next?
Candles and timber fires for every one and two horses out the back?
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 29 August 2009 5:25:41 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
“They are presently generating electricity in the region of A$50 per MWhr including all capital and waste handling costs and has nearly the lowest cost of electricity in Europe.

Excellent appraisal SM on an industry draining the public coffers, a grim reaper which is neither economical, ethical or ecologically sustainable:

1. France has 210 abandoned uranium mines and the removal of the leftover radioactive dirt — along with radioactively contaminated rocks, has been used in school playgrounds and ski-resort parking lots. All efforts to force French nuclear conglomerate, Areva to clean up its mess have so far been met with resistance

2. An alert on a major uranium spill at a nuclear processing plant last year was denied to the public for 14 hours. Areva’s subsidiary at Tricastin, contaminated two rivers. The leak constitutes ‘only’ 130 times the level this reactor alone is permitted to release in an entire year. France’s nuclear safety agency said the uranium solution was "toxic but only slightly radioactive." And that’s supposed to be reassuring is it even though the radioactivity levels caused by the leak are 6000 times higher than regulatory limits allow?

Then three more accidents in the region followed, prompting the French environment minister to order radioactive readings at all 58 operating French reactors.

3. March 2009: One million protesters took part in over 200 protests across France in the second round of strikes and rallies. Sarkozy has refused to contemplate union demands for pay hikes or job protection.

Energy workers cut off 6,000 megawatts of French electricity production capacity overnight, including 14 percent of nuclear capacity in 11 different plants.

4. July 2009: France has been forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action.

Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C.

Whoops! Still with us SM?
Posted by Protagoras, Saturday, 29 August 2009 10:06:03 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
“No one would seriously consider designing reactors here. Australia has as much nuclear experience as the Amish have electronic experience due to our heads in the sand policy.”

The Amish, SM? Right… then you must be delighted to learn that the lead designer and manufacturer of the Lucas Heights OPAL reactor were the Argentineans and I understand that the reactor has already received seven awards in Australia – bravo!

It took ANSTO three months to discover that the reactor was suffering a serious operating problem - yet another nuclear dud! The reactor was shut down for ten months which I daresay would have been a major embarrassment and a setback to the credibility of ANSTO and Ziggy Switkowski, hand picked head of Howard's pro-nuclear review and advocate of 25 nuclear reactors for Australia by 2050. Huh?

There also remains a warranty disputation and the threat of litigation over the construction of the Lucas Heights reactor. Then there is the issue of the loss of revenue as a result of the shutdown, another significant drain on the public purse to support the status quo in a flawed and dangerous nuclear industry:

http://greensmps.org.au/content/transcript/estimates-hearings-ansto-and-lucas-heights

“I am sure that Dr Ben McNeil, a Lecturer and Research Fellow at the Climate & Environmental Dynamics Laboratory is the correct person to comment on the nuclear energy report. Is it possible he might have his own agenda? Ya think?”

No SM, I don’t "think" and why should I? Please enlighten me. Dr Ben McNeil has a Ph.D in Engineering and a Masters degree in Economics and is well qualified in mathematics, statistics, and financial theory to study the economics of a nuclear industry.

Therefore what is McNeil’s “agenda?" The agenda to which you slyly refer? Has he taken a bribe? Has someone put the thumb screws on him? Or has he inadvertently exposed you as an idiot? Please explain?
Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 30 August 2009 1:55:09 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
Protagorass,

Back to your cut and paste "chicken little" posting again?

From your first post:

1 - is a lie. From mines, the non uranium bearing rock and soil that was removed from the surface to expose the ore was distributed. From the hundreds of sites inspected only 8 were found to have radioactivity marginally higher than background, and clean up is nearly complete.

2 - Unrefined uranium is roughly as toxic as lead, and while the spill is serious, compared to other industries, the "chicken little approach is an over reaction.

3 - is a HR issue

4 - The operating license stipulates that the plants can't discharge at about 25C, and this poses a problem if the water into the plant is higher than 25C. This condition has subsequently been changed.

For Dr Ben McNeil's qualification you should see:

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/misc/bmcneil_cv_long.pdf

He does not have a Phd in engineering (Southern Ocean Carbon Cycling) and his primary degree is B Eng (environmental). His Masters is on the Australian political economy. His papers have nothing to do with nuclear (other than the one quoted).

And as far as agenda is concerned, he is publicly pushing the anti nuke agenda on the ABC on Sept 12th.

For god's sake, you look like an idiot again. Check your facts.

I read his paper, and it has so many serious flaws that I am glad he does not call himself an engineer.

The single major flaw is that he is comparing us agains the US model, which is to have individual organisations building completely separate designs, requiring individual certification and testing regimes. If we follow that model, then he is correct.

However, if we follow the French model where a single design is tested and approved, and reproduced multiple times, the construction time and cost are reduced dramatically (by nearly 50% in both cases.) and is being followed by most other EU countries as they ramp up their nuclear capacity.

I am sure that Switowski in drawing up the proposal did not model the nuclear future on a worst case scenario.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 31 August 2009 10:33:39 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
“1 - is a lie. From mines, the non uranium bearing rock and soil that was removed from the surface to expose the ore was distributed. From the hundreds of sites inspected only 8 were found to have radioactivity marginally higher than background, and clean up is nearly complete.”

“Lies” SM? Links please? I remind you that I had referred to *radioactive* dirt and *radioactively* contaminated rocks, not the “non uranium” red herring you tossed in.

“At all of the French uranium mines where it made radiological surveys, the Commission de Recherche et d'Information Indépendantes sur la Radioactivité (CRIIRAD) laboratory discovered situations of environmental contamination and a lack of proper protection of the inhabitants against health risks due to ionizing radiation.”

The documentary: “The Scandal of Contaminated France,” went to air this year, despite Areva’s( France’s primarily, state owned nuclear giant) desperate attempts to have it banned. As a result, citizens of France are no longer asleep at the wheel:

http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.criirad.org/&ei=UHucSsmZA8zUkAWdqsC8Bg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DCommission%2Bde%2BRecherche%2Bet%2Bd%2527Information%2BInd%25C3%25A9pendantes%2Bsur%2Bla%2BRadioactivit%25C3%25A9%2B%2Buranium%2Bmines%26hl%3Den

http://www.alternet.org/world/132852/the_french_nuclear_industry_is_bad_enough_in_france%3b_let's_not_expand_it_to_the_u.s./?page=entire

The ongoing plundering of Niger by French nuclear giant Areva:

http://en.afrik.com/article15648.html

No doubt SM you will advise that the authors of the above publications do not have your “expertise” on all things nuclear, nevertheless, I must say that your rants are real rib ticklers but propaganda and hoodwinks eventually lead to a fall, particularly your ignorant criticism of McNeil’s very appropriate credentials for analysing the operations of a nuclear industry.

contd....
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 3:15:27 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
McNeil's credentials in Ecological Economics and Engineering are disciplinary fields of academic research that address the interdependence and coevolution of human economies, eco-benign engineering design and natural ecosystems over time. Catch on SM?

“Unrefined uranium is roughly as toxic as lead.” What a revelation, SM. Lead's a stable isotope and a final progeny of U238 but are you suggesting that lead's benign? Are you aware that unrefined/refined U238 and its twelve *unstable* progeny - radium, radon, polonium, thorium etc wreak havoc for billions of years before decaying to lead? No I thought not!

And how many of those nuclear reactors are under construction in EU countries, SM? Careful how you brag now and am I the first to inform you that the French nuclear programme is based on an American technology - the ones you sneered at? The French gave up on their own dodgy designs and purchased American pressurized water reactors designed by Westinghouse and then ran them off an assembly line. France's ignominious nuclear history is testament to its failures.

"The operating license stipulates that the plants can't discharge at about 25C, and this poses a problem if the water into the plant is higher than 25C.

Wot? How has the "condition" changed SM? A few of France's inland reactors already have cooling towers so when it gets hot, the electricity company brings in massive supplies of cold water using a fleet of huge trucks. Nevertheless, the industry now gets special permission to further increase the temperature of the water it's pumping back into the rivers despite the threat to marine life.

So what ingenious solutions are you offering for countries where rivers around the world are losing water (according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado) or the threat to existing coastal nuclear reactors from rising sea levels, flooding and erosion? Who's paying?

But hey SM – here’s another cost analysis on nuclear energy and I bet you’ve got a thing or two you can tell these "schmucks" – you being OLO’s fount of knowledge on the atom and all that – hey?:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/01/nuclear_power.html
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 6:01:37 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
Protagorass, (a.k.a. chicken little)

Combined with your posting of deliberately incorrect information, you also completely fail to either read or comprehend previous posts or even the material to which you supply links, or acknowledge the many times in which I expose your BS.

"Dr Ben McNeil has a Ph.D in Engineering" - liar

Ben McNeil has no experience in engineering, power systems or construction, and none of his qualifications or previous papers give him more background to the construction costs of nuclear power stations than any other bloke off the street.

You said "radioactivity levels caused by the leak are 6000 times higher than regulatory limits allow" - another porker, I cannot find any indication of this any where.

"Ground and surface water tests indicated that levels of radioactivity were 5% higher than the maximum rate allowed" From Several sources including:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Center

As all the uranium was in solution, the remedy was to put a temporary ban on the use of the water for irrigation until the contaminant was flushed out.

This was rated a level 1 accident. Refer to the ratings and then tell me how this was a catastrophe, and how the sky is falling?

http://www.asn.fr/sites/default/files/files/INES-scale.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale

Next: "French nuclear programme is based on an American technology - the ones you sneered at" - No I didn't.

Are you autistic or just too stupid to read? I said they reduced their construction costs by standardizing on the design, a concept that evidently eludes you.

Uranium 238 decays so slowly and with alpha particles that it is completely safe to handle (the level of radio activity is difficult to measure). So the "havoc" it wreaks is also a "chicken little" response.

Finally (for this post) "Nevertheless, the industry now gets special permission to further increase the temperature of the water it's pumping back into the rivers despite the threat to marine life."

When the river water temperature rises well above 25C how is passing water into the river at above 25C threatening the marine life? The threat is significantly less than from the CO2 from non nuclear power generation.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 2 September 2009 10:44:38 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
Waaaah! Wikipedia!? The Wizz on Atoms, the Nuked up Don cuts and pastes from Wikipedia: ‘This article (Wikipedia) does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.'

And where is your evidence to support your claim that the river water was 25 celsius SM? And where is the evidence to show that nuclear discharge water is the same temperature as it was when it was sucked in SM? There is no such evidence!

Here Dumpkoph – let me assist you: "ElectricitÈ de France received temporary approval to raise the temperature of the cooling water returned to rivers at the company's Tricastin nuclear site.

"The company plans to ask for permission to raise water discharge temperatures at up to a third of its 58 reactors across France.

“In Germany, environmental rules were relaxed at nuclear plants in Bavaria and Baden-W¸rttemberg. Plants in Baden-W¸rttemberg can now pump water as warm as 30 degrees Celsius back into rivers, up from 28 degrees Celsius, Reuters reported. In Bavaria, plants can raise their discharge water temperature to 27 degrees Celsius up from 25 degrees Celsius. In Belgium, Doel NPP (4 reactors) got permission for discharges at 33 degrees Celsius.”

2007: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled yesterday that EPA cannot allow power plants to kill a trillion fish per year through their cooling water intakes. Cooling water intakes gulp in billions of gallons of river, lake and coastal water to cool power plant machinery. Along with the water, these intakes devour countless fish and fish larvae, devastating fish populations across the country.

2008: Both the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coastal Region criticized the use of coastal and river water to cool nuclear power stations. State authorities concluded that the routine operation of nuclear power stations is killing billions of fish and destroying marine and aquatic habitats by sucking in tremendous amounts of water each day and spewing it out as hot water.

contd….
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 2 September 2009 11:57:08 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
“Uranium 238 decays so slowly and with alpha particles that it is completely safe to handle (the level of radio activity is difficult to measure). So the "havoc" it wreaks is also a "chicken little" response.”

More bobbing and weaving on your part but I must say you're hilarious SM!

Less 1: Uranium ores emit radon gas, and its highly radioactive daughter products and uranium mining is significantly more dangerous than other (already dangerous) hard rock mining. Uranium waste rock and tailings storage sites have been identified as significant sources of radon gas released into the environment.

Lesson 2: If uranium is inhaled or ingested especially via dust, its radioactivity can trigger the development of lung cancer and bone cancer because of uranium's affinity for phosphates.

Uranium-238 Decay Chain Series

Uranium-238
Proactinium-234
Uranium-234
Thorium-230
Radium-226
Radon-222
Polonium-218
Lead-214
Bismuth-214
Polonium-214
Lead-210
Bismuth-210
Polonium-210
Lead-206 (stable)

Take ya pick Dumpkoph. What about a Polonium 210 cocktail dear? Remember the gruesome murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006?

Incidentally Ziggy Switkowski advised Tony Jones on Lateline that he didn’t know enough about the CO2 emission equation to comment upon its veracity but he believes we could build reactors for $2 – 3 billion – whoops! Sounds familiar - more of your pub talk!

Hey though perhaps he could act as a travelling salesman for the Canadian government who announced a plan last May to seek buyers for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd's dud, nuclear reactor business, to bring in private-sector management for AECL's problem-plagued Chalk River facility.

After a two-year review of Ottawa's flagship nuclear company, Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt has now launched a sale process with the aim of finding a major international partner for AECL to help boost global sales of its Candu reactors but you know they’re flogging a dead horse.

Ottawa faces liabilities worth approximately $7-billion to clean up waste at the Chalk River site – what a mess – but what else could one expect from the planet's grim reapers?

PS: Your inability to address the other issues I've raised and your pitiful red herrings are noted!
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 3 September 2009 2:05:06 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
Protagorass,

Thanks to your illuminating post I will now avoid eating or breathing uranium. (or lead, mercury, cadmium etc) Twit.

Radon is a decay product of uranium, which is common in the Earth's crust. Every square km of surface soil, to a depth of 1 m, contains approximately 3 grams of radium, which releases radon in small amounts to the atmosphere. Globally, it is estimated that 2,400 million curies of radon are released from soil annually.

So Einstein, how come all life on earth has not ceased? Or is this yet another "chicken little" response. Maybe with a 4 day half life it decays to nothing in a month so unless you live on a tailings dump you are fine.

Wikipedia often has concise articles but if you want:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Uranium_solution_spill_at_Tricastin_0907081.html
http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/French_authorities_keep_water_ban_after_nuclear_leak_999.html

Some links to support your wild unsupported claims would be welcome, as your record of truthfulness is not good.

Please note that river water levels were below safe drinking water levels within 2 days, and the bore water never registered any contamination.

The whole cooling water issue is a complete furphy, as evidenced from your posts this applies to all power plants and not just the nuclear, and has been remedied in most cases by the EPA, and is has absolutely b all to do with nuclear safety, nor do most of your other "chicken little" expressions of horror.

You are really scraping the barrel with "The ongoing plundering of Niger by French nuclear giant Areva." Or possibly it should be called the plundering of the substantial taxes and dues paid by Areva to Niger gov by corrupt Niger officials.

The bottom line is that in spite of all the accidents nuclear power is by far the safest even more so than renewable. Given the present inability of renewable sources to mean electricity demand, the choice will be nuclear or GHG emitting technology for decades.

You can bumble and bluster all you want, but the fact that nearly all the world is proceding with expanding their nuclear capacity shows that it is by far the lesser of two evils.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 3 September 2009 11:15:27 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
"So Einstein, how come all life on earth has not ceased? Or is this yet another "chicken little" response. Maybe with a 4 day half life it decays to nothing in a month so unless you live on a tailings dump you are fine."

Well Dumpkoph it's actually 3.8 days, however, radon 222 is a progeny of radium 226 which has a half life of 1602 years. Unfortunately the scientific ramifications and relevance of radium to radon would be way over your head but you could always look up your Wikipedia since science journals are beyond your intellectual scope.

"Or possibly it should be called the plundering of the substantial taxes and dues paid by Areva to Niger gov by corrupt Niger officials."

Yeah well Dumpkoph - you know the old adage: "Birds of a feather flock together!"

"The bottom line is that in spite of all the accidents nuclear power is by far the safest even more so than renewable."

When a man cannot count or number twenty and having been frequently told of it, it is a fair presumption that he is devoid of understanding. In essence - a cretin, and I'm outa here!
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 3 September 2009 1:07:06 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
Protagorass,

Radon 222 has a half life of 3.8235 days, but not being a pedantic twit I rounded up. If that is all you can resort to, you are pathetic.

Radium 226 has a longer half life, but is also an alpha emitter so is only dangerous if ingested or breathed, but as a solid is likely to remain in the earth. The radon gas (generated naturally) is breathed in and is more dangerous.

Have you any other useless information such as "the sun is brighter in the day"

Its good to see that you finally admitted that you are a cretin and decided to leave.

It looks like "chicken little" became a "little chicken".
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 3 September 2009 2:36:10 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
While I have not the education of you two blokes I am following your posts with interest.
And I have no doubt, none, that we will use this power here.
I recorded Howe's speech and have watched it twice tonight, he is a man of the future.
And he is also right, I agree with his views about the left of my party too.
But feel no threat from them, if left to the left Labor would not govern in any state or territory and never in Canberra.
Nuclear power, as it is for so many country's, Will be in our future.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 3 September 2009 6:19:30 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. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

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