Fester

>> With nuclear power, the relevance is with the fourth generation reactors, which will extract 140 times more energy than current reactors, will be capable of using existing nuclear waste as a fuel, and will leave a smaller amount of waste with a short period of radioactivity. Talking about the dangers of the past is a bit like ranting about the safety of motor cars, but using data prior to the introduction of seatbelts, airbags, crumplle zones, crash testing etc.

What is relevant is the question of when viable fourth gen reactors will be available, whether they will live up to expectations, how much other technologies will develop over the period, and whether the Earth is continuing to warm as predicted. Surely a discussion of the future prospects of energy supply is of more interest than puerile exchanges of abuse? <<

I couldn't agree more!

How about we wean ourselves off both coal and 'old' nuclear?
Ok, we can't do that until 'carbon' is priced/taxed and 4th gen comes on line. In the mean time, we could have a moratorium on 'new' coal and 3rd gen while subsidies are given to alternatives instead of Old King Coal.
Unfortunately, pig squadrons are queued and ready for take-off.

Protagoras

You might not consider Barry Brook an ‘expert’ on nuclear, but some of his guests and commenters are. He is at least facilitating discussion in Oz on energy supply; have you raised your concerns there and if so, what was the outcome? Alternatively, you may have to go overseas.

What do you make of this?

“For nuclear energy to remain a long term option in the world’s energy mix, nuclear power technology development must meet sustainability goals with regard to fissile resources and waste management. The utilization of ‘breeding’ to secure long term fuel supply remains the ultimate goal of fast reactor (4th generation) development.

Plutonium recycle in fast reactors, as well as incineration/transmutation of minor actinides and long lived fission products in various hybrid reactor systems (e.g. accelerator driven systems, and fusion-fission hybrids) also offer promising waste management options. Several R&D programmes in various Member States are actively pursuing these options, along with the energy production and breeding mission of fast reactor systems. With this project, the Agency assists Member State activities by providing an umbrella for information exchange and collaborative R&D to pool resources and expertise.”

You can find out more here:

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/index.html

Qanda

When I try a new recipe for the family, I don’t serve it up on platters from which the blowflies have feasted. One first “wipes” the platters clean to protect the health of the consumers. Why do I need to go overseas when 'blowflies' in Australia's U industry are so abundant?

Further, I have “engaged” in Barry Brook’s nuclear debate on the issue of mine overburden and SOC loss to the atmosphere. Responses? Nil!

Brook, it appears is indifferent to the concerns of “scientists and doctors including a Nobel Prize-winner and two Australians of the year (who) have warned of the "mind-blowing risk" of the Olympic Dam expansion:” He arrogantly believes he is more knowledgeable than the experts:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/health-warning-for-olympic-dam-mine-expansion/story-e6freo8c-1225763015405

Additionally, Brook is dodging the numerous peer-reviewed papers on the dangers of low-level radiation to humans and non-humans.

Joe Citizen takes umbrage when the facts are obfuscated and this is apparent when Brook presents an obsolete U map of “deposits, prospective and former mines and surrounding cities or towns":

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IKPYeM5QTnMJ:bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/05/carbon-footprint-of-the-olympic-dam-uranium-mine-expansion/+barry+brook+uranium+mining&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

The harsh reality:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&t=h&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=101724410662104548145.0004757aca0e25c4e05e5

Over fifty years ago the WHO’s assembly voted into force an obscure but important agreement with the IAEA – founded just two years before in 1957. The impact of this agreement has been to give the IAEA an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power and so prevent the WHO from playing its proper role in investigating and warning of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health.

The IAEA's mission was to "accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world".

In fact, the IAEA's main role has been to promote the interests of the nuclear power industry worldwide, and it has used the agreement to suppress the growing body of scientific information on the real health risks of nuclear radiation.

The nuclear industry has a belching tailpipe, its doors are falling off, and its alarming honking noises prevail in the 21st century.

Scientists, who refer readers to the IAEA for “expert” advice, demean their professions.

Protagoras,

Once again you quote "nobel scientist and australians of the year". With how much mining back ground?

I note in you link none of the elements from which there is a "mind blowing danger" is uranium. This is probably because Olympic dam is a copper mine that has a tiny fraction of by product of uranium.

Many of the mines leach the chemicals out in an acid process, (gold uses cyanic acid), and the vast majority of the "acid toxic waste" you bandy around is rock.

After leaching process, the rock is washed (to recover the acid with the chemicals) and then put on the dumps where it has a lower mineral level than when it was in the ground.

If this was used to stop the Olympic dam project, it would also be vaid to stop every mine in the country.

Shadow Minister

I was born into mining and members belonging to five generations of my family have had illustrious and not so illustrious careers in the mining industry.

Please refrain from your futile endeavours to sell ice to an eskimo.

Protagoras,

I was unaware mining process knowledge was hereditary.

I however, spent a short time in my youth with a consultancy designing process plants for mines, incl gold, coal, diamonds, copper, etc.

Your osmotically acquired knowledge bears little resemblance to reality, and much resemblance to the fantasy published by the greens.