I doubt that is physically or politically possible to run more than a fraction of Australia's bountiful economy on wind and solar. The investment would run to trillions and would still require additional sacrifice in the form of energy rationing. Coal and gas provide power night and day whether the wind is blowing or not. They pick up the slack when the current token amounts of wind and solar lapse into the doldrums, often when they are most needed such as late afternoon heatwaves.

If you accept that we should greatly reduce carbon emissions and that massive energy reductions will cause hardship that leaves few options. For Australia that could initially include third generation nuclear, notably prefabricated modular reactors, followed by fourth generation such as the IFR. Several of Australia's coal fired baseload power stations will soon need replacement and we should consider nuclear. Later IFRs can eat the waste of those early nuclear plants.

As to the molten sodium bogey I could point out that the solar charged battery on Adelaide's Tindo bus contains it. That might be released in a collision yet we accept the risk.

Thanks Noel for an informative article on the little-known technology of Integral Fast Reactors.

Increases my opposition to nuclear power generation of any sort. The idea of many small reactors on mines or for that matter anywhere is horrific and bizzare.

You mentioned 'The Australian' giving this professor a credible run on this obscure and dangerous technology when they haven't done the same for the many safe and currently economic or soon to be economic renewable, smart grid and energy efficiency technologies (indeed they regularly 'bag' wind and solar). This rag is increasingly being seen as a reckless conduit for the interests of the big fossil / nuclear resource corporations who are plundering our country and have no regard for the future.

Increasingly, people are moving to expert investigative journalism websites such as 'Climate Spectator' and 'Renew Economy' for true information on energy.

"The nuclear industry has a world-wide problem in that it can get private investment only where the government subsidises it."

The same comment might also be applied to the renewable energy industry as well, so what is your problem.

David

If Germany can survive and I use the term survive deliberately, on solar and wind, then Australia most definitely can also.
There are no safeguards that can guarantee the safe operation of a nuclear plant.
It is just not worth the risk to install and run them.
The waste disposal is a nightmare.
Sorry Barry but this hobbyhorse of yours is dead in the water. Especially if there is another big tremor off the coast of Japan, where the No 4 plant at Fujkishima is poised ready to collapse and cause a cloud of radiation to go around the Northern hemisphere, which will cause large scale death.
The Japanese Government is in consultation with Russia to take the population of Tokyo and surrounds in this event.
Australia is lucky that it is ideally suited to solar and of course wind and wave could also play a part.
We will have to reduce our consumption but there is plenty of possibilities there.
You only have to look at the waste of power at night with cities lit up like Christmas trees.

This article is misinformed and simply repetition of the tired old anti-nuclear talking points which have been refuted repeatedly.

Nuclear is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies. http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/ This has been demonstrated over nearly 60 years, and 15,000 reactor years of service, only three severe accidents and only one has caused fatalities (about 60 confirmed attributable to the Chernobyl accident).

The weapons proliferation argument is a furphy that has been put to bed repeatedly.

Regarding emissions reductions, the author says:

<blockquote> Given that climate scientists are warning that climate change is near to becoming irreversible, one might well ask - will all the nuclear reactors be built in time to prevent this, even if they are not greenhouse gas producers? </blockquote>

If nuclear cannot be implemented fast enough, then nothing else can. http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/lang_2010_emissions_cuts_realities_v1.pdf Renewables cannot provide our energy, are hugely expensive, require fossil fuel back up and therefore do not cut emission by much http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/ . They are little more than an ideological symbol.

‘Propagandists’. ‘Acolyte’. This nurse lays out her position at the outset. She doesn’t like nuclear energy, presumably of any description. So she doesn’t like the idea that 400 and something nuclear power stations are already running in 30 or so countries (the shutdowns in Japan make the numbers a bit less certain than they were). She doesn’t seem to believe that engineers can improve nuclear technology so she presumably doesn’t believe that they improve the designs and performance of other industrial plants, or bridges, or cars, or dialysis units and hip replacements for that matter. And clearly nothing is going to change her view. So I shall not try.

But it might be worthwhile addressing the very first ‘fact’ in her piece, that “in the total cycle from uranium mining to waste disposal, nuclear power IS a greenhouse gas producer”. Well, all energy conversion systems cause greenhouse emissions over their full life cycles. This is a much studied subject. A statement like Wauchope’s means nothing unless accompanied by the numbers. There is a wide range of emission estimates for nuclear power depending on the particular energy requirements of mining and processing uranium ore and enriching the product to make nuclear fuel. Per unit of electrical energy generated, the estimates lie between 0.2% and 9% of emissions from coal-fired power. Appropriate ore and processing choices would keep that number well below 5%. Most solar, wind and hydroelectric plants do better, according to these studies. That’s one thing in their favour.

Maybe looking at all the facts, all the ‘fors’ and ‘againsts’, with an open mind, is the way to go.

If we want to cut GHG emissions by 50% or more, the major part of the solution is clear (IMO). It’s nuclear generated electricity.

Cheap electricity provides water and produces liquid fuels for energy carriers for transport fuels. I suspect the mention of ‘cheap’ nuclear has stopped most people in their tracks. Why?

Regulatory ratcheting has increased the cost of nuclear by a factor of four to 1990 (according to Bernard Cohen) and probably double again since. Nuclear has been regulated to its high price. If not for the excessive regulation it has suffered for the past 50 odd years, it would be far cheaper. It would also be safer. It would have progressed through the development stages like other technologies have progressed through, but which have been prevented for nuclear.

The commercial airline industry is a good parallel. It is also a complex system which has accidents and kills people. It has accidents and kills hundreds of people at a time, thousands per year. But it is continually improving. Air travel costs have been coming down and safety increasing for the past 50 years. We accept the small risk of being involved in an accident because of the enormous benefit of low cost air travel. If we had regulated more stringently over the past 50 years, air travel would be more expensive now, there would be less air travel, the world would have lower GDP (because of less face to face communication and less commerce) and we’d be worse off. Importantly, air travel would be less safe than it is now because it would have had less development.

Development of the nuclear industry has been choked and constrained. So nuclear generation is not as safe and it is more expensive than it would have been if it had been allowed to compete and develop on an equal footing with other electricity generation technologies.

continued next post ...

.... continued from previous post

Nuclear fuel is 20,000 times more energy dense than coal and oil in the Gen III reactors and potentially up to 2 million times more energy dense in Gen IV reactors. That means many things: nuclear fuel is virtually unlimited in the Earth’s crust so can power all our energy needs indefinitely. A golf-ball size piece of uranium can provide all the energy needs of the average American for their whole life (that is all the energy needs for all the products, services and direct energy a person usesd for their whole life). Secondly, high energy density means negligible mining, negligible transport of fuels, negligible storage space. Negligible storage space and cost means the energy security problem is solved; i.e. countries can hold effectively unlimited energy in storage for as long as they want.

In WWII, the US was building aircraft carriers in 100 days (from the start to fully equipped and fully loaded with aircraft and weapons). If USA could do that 70 years ago, the industrial countries could certainly produce small modular nuclear power plants at whatever rate the world needs them. They’d be built in factories, shipped to site and returned to factory for refuelling (similar to submarines refuelling cycle).

How could we do this?

Remove all the impediments we’ve imposed, over the past 50 years, that are preventing nuclear electricity generation from being cost competitive with fossil fuels. This included the distortions we’ve imposed on our energy markets, such as tax breaks, subsidies, feed in tariffs, and masses of regulations to favour one technology or another.

No other intervention in markets is needed. All we have to do is remove the impediments we’ve imposed by 50 years of wrong-headed interventions.

Once we have cheap electricity, then we’ll be able to produce water and energy carriers for transport fuels to meet our needs

This author is definitely not sufficiently knowledgeable to be trusted.

From the style used by the author, I have gained the impression that he is well meaning and genuinely interested in this topic. In fact, I would say that he is caught, as so many others, between concern about anthropogenic climate change and concern about nuclear power generation. Unfortunately, he has failed to achieve anything approaching balance on the latter subject, apparently as a result of knowing nothing about it.

I could go on and on about the errors, exaggerations and half-truths in the article, but I will pick only one, which has been overlooked by previous writers.

Quote: "<b>Security.</b> This would turn out to be a nightmare, all the more so with small thorium reactors."

Any author who does not know that thorium fuelled fission power plants are not IFR is displaying a huge lack of knowledge and needs to go back to school before writing on the topic of IFR reactors.

<i>OnLineOpinion</i>, by publishing this tripe, has displayed a need for better editorial guidance.

Professor Brook collaborated in preparation of a small book which was published several years back. It is an excellent starting point for those who are interested in fission energy, either for or against. Barry Brook wrote half of a book, the other half of which was written by one who opposes fission power. I recommend "Why Vs Why... Nuclear Power". It costs less than $20 and is probably still in print.

The author says this:

"Given that climate scientists are warning that climate change is near to becoming irreversible,"

What rot! What does that mean; that the near to ideal conditions prevailing during this interglacial are going to continue forever? That we are going to have perpetual climate change in the future, as opposed to what we had in the past: perpetual climate change.

Is it a statement of the author's acceptance of entropy? No doubt she is familiar with the Maximum Entropy production principle which defines all natural process, including the climate; in which case, fair enough!

I note Peter Lang's comments. I don't agree with Brooks' views about AGW but I do agree with him about IFRs; they are the real McCoy and they work.

Fukishima gave the nuclear industry a black eye, and deservedly so because it was severely outdated technology. France which uses updated nuclear technology is a template for the nuclear industry while the rest of Europe is going bankrupt in the dark through the fraudulent investment in the scam of wind and solar.

And IFRs are leap year ahead of what is in France. Instead of giving $13 billion to wind and solar start-ups over the next 3 years this witless government should be investing in nuclear.

And, as well as nuclear, Thorium. Why isn't Thorium ever mentioned at official levels in this debate. For a good analaysis of THorium see:

http://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2011/12/19/is-thorium-energys-silver-bullet/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciblogsnz+%28SciBlogs.co.nz%29

Miss Wauchope does not claim to be an expert in nuclear energy. She has sort the expertise of Arjun Makhijani, President of Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Dr Makhijani has experience in electrical and nuclear engineering but he is also the author of the book “Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy (2007)” which might give some indication of his personal views about nuclear energy.

It is unfortunate that Miss Wauchope didn’t also seek the expertise of less biased nuclear experts. In particular experts with first hand experience of building liquid metal fast breeder reactors. This is what Professor Brook has done over several years to develop his views on this topic. He has been in extensive communication with scientists at Argonne National Laboratory who built the forerunner of IFR called the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II before the project was curtailed in 1994 for political (not engineering) reasons. The Professor has even visited the mothballed EBR reactor along with the key designers and builders.

Perhaps Barry will provide his own comments on the veracity of this opinion piece. But at this stage I know which version I would put my money on.

For years, the idea it might be possible to extract energy from the nucleus of a hydrogen atom at low temperatures has been in disrepute - "cold fusion"

Recently scientists are seeing heat, which can only be coming from nuclear reactions, during experiments with hydrogen loaded into nickel and palladium.

Robert Godes has been working in this field and says that he has a reliable heat-producing device, and understands the physics behind it which he calls the Quantum Fusion Hypothesis. Godes has shared his insights with scientists at Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratories and SRI International. Both have verified that it does work and they can now produce heat from hydrogen.

Godes' hypothesis is interesting, first of all, heat coming from infusing hydrogen into nickel or palladium is not coming from "cold fusion" in the classic sense, it is not a deuterium fusing with deuterium reaction as takes place in the sun which requires extremely high energies.

What seems to be happening is that when hydrogen is "loaded" into nickel or palladium and subjected to the proper kind of an electromagnetic pulse, the hydrogen nucleus which is a positively charged proton acquires an electron which turns it into a low energy free neutron.

Now a low energy free neutron is something nice to have for it quickly combines with other protons to form deuterium, tritium and finally quadrium. The quadrium only lasts for an instant before undergoing a process called beta decay turning it into helium. This is where E = MC2 comes in. The beta decay of quadrium results in a loss of mass which is turned into heat. If all this pans out, it could be one of the most important secrets of nature that has ever been discovered, our energy problems would be over.

Godes says that if the reaction is done properly, the nickel or palladium which is only used as a matrix to hold the hydrogen in one place is not consumed in the reaction. For those sceptical, visit www.brillouinenergy.com

At last something I can agree with Geoff about. David Stockwell has been looking at this process and has many posts on it; here is one:

http://landshape.org/enm/rossi-opens-10-kw-expression-of-interest-list-and-sets-10-kw-price/

Rossi is the Italian inventor of the process and has even interested Dick Smith:

http://landshape.org/enm/dick-smith-offers-1m-for-proof-of-lenr/

Noel Wauchope presents yet another anti-nuclear rant. The safety of nuclear energy is shown in the following information has been extracted from a table entitled “Fatal Accidents worldwide 1969-2000” chapter 6 of Dr Switkowski’s report.

Coal excluding China: 177 Accidents, 7090 Direct fatalities ; Direct fatalities 0.876 GWe/y.

Hydro: 11 Accidents, 29,938 Direct fatalities ; Direct fatalities 4.265 GWe/y.

Nuclear: 1 Accident, 31 Direct fatalities; Direct fatalities 0.006 GWe/y.

The full table includes data from oil, natural gas LPG, as fuels for power generation. The data for coal and hydro generation excluding China is also stated. The message is clear the nuclear industry has a sterling health and safety record for power generation.

The hazards of wind turbines can be found at http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/index.htm

The Caithness data is updated to 31March 2012 and suggest an increasing trend as more and more wind turbines are constructed. They also make the following point regarding their table and data.

“Data in the detailed table attached is by no means fully comprehensive - CWIF believe that what is attached may only be the "tip of the iceberg" in terms of numbers of accidents and their frequency.”

The question of determining the long term risks to health are subject to a belief in the mathematical shape of exposure v effect curves. The Linear non threshold hypothesis is great for setting radiation limits. However, from the point of view of radiation biology it is over cautious (no problem in a regulatory setting); but as a predictor of harm after say from the Chernobyl accident grossly inaccurate.

Overall ionising radiation is a weak carcinogen at low levels of exposure say 50 mSv or less, it is difficult to prove by epidemiological studies that there is actual harm. Indeed there is a strong possibility from the literature that some exposure may be beneficial to health (Hormesis).

In what postmodern, parallel universe, does Ms Wauchope ( with several post-graduate qualifications, in health informatics, medical terminology and clinical coding) become a credible expert in the nuclear power industry?

Or is nuclear physics now a component of some form of postnormal science discipline in medical science?

Hey! why not broaden the base even more. Someone could do a shopping centre survey to see what the public thinks about which elements should be allowed to be radioactive.

Same old same old tired argument? Sure thorium reactors need a little kick start with other fissile material. Perhaps they could get all they need, if we but collected all the uranium emanating from coal-fired smoke stacks?
New technology like that inherent in the pebble reactor, all but prevent any possible nuclear melt down. Sure there is heat in any nuclear reaction.
It's the transfer of that heat that produces the steam that turns the turbines.
Remember, fusion reaction produces heat greater than the centre of the sun, and given we can safely contain a fusion reaction, then there are not too many probs containing the heat of a controlled fission reaction.
In the pebble reactor, its helium and even if the coolant is somehow completely cut off, there is no melt down, given the design features of the fuel, simply prevent critical mass from ever being reached.
It's not just uranium that comes from some coal fired power stations smoke stacks that are a health concern, but a range of other heavy metals as well.
I live downwind from a large coal-fired facility and if offered a choice, would plainly prefer that that power generating facility was a pebble reactor nuclear facility.
Thorium power ditto. Moreover there is 4 times more thorium than uranium, we have lots of it and there are no weapons spin-off.
And though it might well be a close run thing, we still have some time yet to start seriously addressing man-made climate change.
Simply producing the power onsite where it is needed, will halve the amount of pollution currently being produced by the power generation companies. Centralised power and the grid are a least half the problem?
The author seems ready to give up on addressing climate change if any part of the solution includes nuclear?
That seems almost as sane as Nero fiddling while Rome burned down around him? I wonder if it is just nuclear or the re-industrialisation of the economy that really bothers the author? Rhrosty.

What a lot of negative feedback!
To reply to just a few of these comments:

RENEWABLE ENERGY. Pro nuclear advocates don’t seem to keep up with the rapidly developing advances in solar and wind energy. I recommend REneweconomy’s analyses - for example Solar insights why solar will win the energy wars http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/solar-insights-why-solar-will-win-the-energy-wars-80365
Renewable energy is fast approaching the situation where it needs no subsidy , in Germany, where it has been developed in a purposeful way. Nuclear power, on the other hand, since its inception in the 1950s has continually needed huge tax-payer funding - and not only for the build, but also for the perpetual cleanup of toxic wastes. Solar and wind have no cleanup problems, and the fuel is free, unlike uranium or thorium.

SAFETY. I am kind of speechless that Peter Lang claims that nuclear power is unsafe because of “excessive regulation” I wonder how many Chernobyls, Fukushimas, Three Mile Islands there would be , with less regulation.

REPROCESSING, SECURITY, INSPECTION. Thorium, not being fissile, must have plutonium or uranium to start and sustain the nuclear chain reaction. Thorium reactors still require reprocessing close by, because to function efficiently, they have to separate the fuel from the fission products. Protactinium 233 (highly radioactive) builds up in the blanket of thorium - needs to be extracted, takes time (months) to be stored and reprocessed to uranium 233 – which can then be put back into the reactor. Spent fuel is reprocessed with U232 to get out U 233

HEALTH AND DEATHS FROM NUCLEAR POWER, anti green’s comments “Nuclear: 1 Accident, 31 Direct fatalities; Direct fatalities 0.006 GWe/y. “ Anti green also puts up the theory of “hormesis” – that low level radiation is good for you. This has been discredited very recently in a landmark report ‘Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003: An Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases’. I have discussed this at length in http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/life/health/low-dose-ionising-radiation-is-harmful-to-health/

Just 3 more comments on comments:

EXPERTISE As to Carfax’s righteous indignation about expertise, I’ve never claimed to be an expert on nuclear science. Does he mean that only nuclear engineers can have an opinion about nuclear power?

DEATHS FROM NUCLEAR POWER AS to Anti green’s statement on deaths from nuclear power. That is similar to stating that only a few people have died from cigarette smoking , for example in a fire started by smoking.

CLIMATE CHANGE. Well, it’s looking as if climate change will be the solution to nuclear power – seeing that extremes of weather, excessive heat, floods, sea level rise, more earthquakes and tsunamis look like making nuclear power at best, less reliable, and at worst downright critically dangerous.

"Renewable energy is fast approaching the situation where it needs no subsidy"

Complete and utter garbage. I know what situation is approaching fast; the situation where those that promulgate such rubbish are dragged off to court to justify their claims.

In the meantime go and preach this drivel to the good citizens of Spain who watched their hard-earns walk out the door with the renewable energy sector.

As for Germany, you must be joking. Q-cell, once the largest solar panel manufacturer in the world and based in Germany has gone belly-up as have a host of other subsidised to the eyeballs renewable scams.

And after going all girlieman after Fukishima, which involved 45 year old bad nuclear technology, and closing its nuclear Germany is once again going after coal and gas:

http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/5143-climate-policy-on-ice.html

The only thing you will get from wind and solar is dark, freezing and hungry. It is a disgrace they are still being peddled.

4th (even 3rd) generation reactors are fine.
In Oz? Yes, but not at this point in time - we're not ready, in more ways than one.

The amount of factual errors here is just staggering.

"And in the total cycle from uranium mining to waste disposal, nuclear power IS a greenhouse gas producer"

As others have pointed out, a full life cycle analysis have been done for nuclear many times, and have often ended up next to wind in emissions.

"Let's examine the facts on the Integral Fast Reactors: It's true that with these liquid fuel reactors..."

This is the first major error. IFR is not a liquid fuel reactor. The IFR is a sodium cooled fast spectrum reactor using solid fuel pellets.
Molten Salt Reactors(MSR) use liquid fuel, where the fuel is dissolved in molten salts, which also acts as the coolant.

"But the volatile fission products evaporate from the molten salt..."

Completely false. The molten salt is an ionic liquid that forms very stable bonds with all fission products, except the noble gasses xenon and krypton that bubble out due to high operating temperature, which is a good thing since xenon is the by far the number one neutron poison.
Also, molten salts does not react with air or water.

"They are put into another chamber – they make steam..."

Except for the two gasses, all fission products stay in the molten salt. The heat is then transferred through to a secondary molten salt loop, which in turn is transferred to the working fluid of a closed brayton cycle.

"Weapons proliferation"

I will start by stating that proliferation is political problem. No technology will stop a country from obtaining nuclear weapons if they so desire.
Also, not a single nuclear weapon have ever been made using plutonium from a commercial nuclear rector. It has all been from reactors designed to produce weapons grade plutonium. This is because the isotopic mix is completely wrong, containing only ~56% Pu-239 while over 90% is required to be used in a nuclear weapon.

Continued in next post...

OK - so I have written about Integral Fast Reactors and Liquid Fuel reactors in an unclear way.

And I would be the first to admit that I find the study of all the different types of nuclear reactors quite a challenge.

My comments about thorium reactors related to the particular type of thorium reactor which is getting a lot of enthusiasm lately - the LFTR Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactor.
Noel Wauchope

Continuation...

"fast neutron reactors require a reprocessing plant nearby..."

A breeder reactor generates enough fuel from fertile material to replace the fissile fuel that is consumed.
The problem with solid fueled reactors is that the fuel pellets can only be used for a limited time before the strain from internal pressure becomes too high, and thus required reprocessing to extract and fabricate new fuel.
An MSR does not have this problem since the fuel is a liquid, and does not need a separate facility to extract and fabricate new fuel. Exactly how it operates depends on if it is a single fluid or a two fluid design.

"Thorium reactors themselves produce Protactinium-233 - from which uranium 233 a bomb grade material can be made"

Breeding of U-233 from thorium inevitable creates U-232 from (n-2n) reactions. The daughter products of U-232 contain very strong gamma emitters, making handling of fuel directly extremely dangerous and destroys electronics, making U-233 contaminated with U-232 unsuitable for nuclear weapons.

"Wastes"

Radiation is inversely proportional to half-life, meaning the longer half-life an isotope has, the less radioactive it is.
Cs-135 and I-129 are both weak beta emitters, which mean that they pose very little hazard thanks to their long half-life.
Even with its 211000 year half life, Tc-99 does not pose much risk because it is also a weak beta emitter.

"Cesium-137 and strontium-190, hundreds of years"

First, it's Sr-90, not Sr-190.
Second, they have half life of 30 and 29 years respectively, making them safe after 300 years.

"Protactinium-233 has a half-life of 32760 years"

Pa-233 have a half life of 27 days, not 32760 years. It is a step in the Th-232 breeding process which goes like this: Th-232 + n -> Th-233 > Pa-233 -> U-233
U-233 is the fissile fuel, which is used in the reactor. Neither it nor Pa-233 is waste.

"Because of the chemistry of the molten salt reactor..."

MSR is the only reactor that can be built with an integrated fuel breeding and refueling system that does not allow the diversion of fissile material.

Continuation tomorrow...

Well said, Uzza.

The article which started this thread indicates the complete lack of factual justification for the opinions expressed by this very much mistaken and illogical writer.

However, I am afraid that this is another situation where emotional preconception has bitten deep and the wound will take a long time to heal.

Unfortunately and to Australia's eventual cost, this nation is blessed with three very large sources of energy - fossil fuels (gas and oil), fission fuels (uranium and thorium) and sunlight. That we have, as a nation, embraced fossil and sunlight fuels to the exclusion of nuclear power, and for the flimsiest of reasons, is an error which our children and their children will have to remedy, because far too many have listened to the unfounded nonsense of the 1970's which has been amplified and publicised for the past 40 years by such as Helen Caldicott, who is quite possibly Australia's most dangerous export ever, when assessed on a pound for pound basis.

To Jimbonic
I was aware of the paper by Ozasa K et al on Radiation Research. The Radiation Effects Foundation which has made an important contribution to our knowledge of the effect of radiation on human health. The RERF has had a major impact on determining the levels of exposure appropriate to workers and members of the public.
The following biological problems remain in using this data to predict the effects of exposure to individuals or even to populations.
• Is a wartime Japanese population subject to a sudden burst of radiation equivalent to any 21st Century population?

• The RERF data, using the updated DS02 system, but not include information on dose rate. It is probable that low dose rates have a different effect compared to the same dose administered as a single blast.

• Populations living in areas with high background radiation do not seem to have higher cancer incidence.

• Since when are biological questions solved by a curve fit program and the R squared test?

I also noted that the 14th Report does not discuss confounding factors. For instance what is the role of H.pylori in stomach cancer, or virus infection in case of leukaemia?

From table 1, I noticed that of children exposed at age 0-9 years at time of the bombing 88% are still alive.

I agree that this is a subject of great controversy and this has been the case for decades. There is a vast literature on the subject for too great for any one person to master. In the final analysis one must exercise scientific judgment.

It is also necessary to form value judgements of the obvious benefits of nuclear energy against the risks of possible theoretical detriment. In some cases the latent period for cancer induction may well exceed the natural lifespan of the exposed individual. My judgement is in favour of the nuclear industry

Bonmot said:

“4th (even 3rd) generation reactors are fine.
In Oz? Yes, but not at this point in time - we're not ready, in more ways than one.”

I agree. That is the reality. We should all face up to it. The main reason we are not ready is that nuclear would be far too expensive in Australia.

Nuclear generated electricity would cost about twice what it costs in USA, four times Korea and much more than our existing electricity. (However, it would cost far less than renewable energy http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/ )

The main reason nuclear would be so expensive is labour rates and labour productivity. It takes Australia’s labour 1.35 hours to do what US labour does in 1 hour. And our labour rates are much higher too. Australia’s construction costs are about 60% to 90% higher than in the USA for non controversial facilities like hospitals and airports, and double for controversial facilities like desalination http://www.bca.com.au/Content/99520.aspx . We can only guess what the cost premium might be for nuclear?

Another reason Australia is not ready for nuclear is because we have cheap coal. On a purely rational basis, nuclear will (or should) replace coal where nuclear is cheaper than coal first. If the world had an economically efficient ETS applying uniformly across all countries and including all emissions sources (we don’t and it is probably impossible and won’t happen), Australia would convert from coal to nuclear when nuclear generated electricity is projected to be cheaper than coal over the life of the next plant to be built. On this purely rational basis Australia will be one of the last countries to implement nuclear. [I recognise some will argue from a morals perspective for doing otherwise, but I am referring to just the purely rational argument].

Jimbonic writes in another post:

“AS to Anti green’s statement on deaths from nuclear power. That is similar to stating that only a few people have died from cigarette smoking , for example in a fire started by smoking.”

Come come, it is patently obvious that any activity that humans undertake both voluntarily and by necessity carries a risk of morbidity and mortality. This is true of such mundane tasks as crossing the road, or voluntarily partaking in sporting activities. In the case of stone age man hunting bison.
All forms of power generation including your much beloved wind turbines have detriment. It is just that the historic record is favourable to the nuclear industry.

anti-green writes:
"Since when are biological questions solved by a curve fit program and the R squared test?"

Are you really being serious?

Since, like, ever.

Most toxicological questions are resolved by curve fitting and r squared tests. Pharmacology and toxicology is founded on these types of analyses.

Brush up man.

John Bennetts,

“However, I am afraid that this is another situation where emotional preconception has bitten deep and the wound will take a long time to heal.”

True. Another example, of course, is the massive exaggeration about the consequences of CO2 emissions, and the reprehensible use of scare tactics – continual propaganda about catastrophic consequences – to justify socialist/progressive tax and spend policies which will make not one iota of difference to the climate or sea levels.

Bugsy

Of course you are correct and practical decisions can be made from statistical models.

Equally a correlation does not prove causation. The biological mechanisms for cancer induction are complex. Several non- linear multiple mechanisms may be involved in the process. Some factors will be promoting while others will inhibiting the neoplastic process. I have in minds such factors as cell repair, apoptosis, immune surveillance, bystander effects, hormesis, and so on.

To return to your post a linear or linear quadratic model are easy to understand and apply to practical situations. While introducing a threshold into radiation protection regulations would be an entirely new ball game. It will be difficult to establish an agreed threshold level. Further it is very likely that any threshold will vary between individuals as well as different tissues.

I am not complaining about the application of LNTH to regulation. I am very critical of the application of LNTH to predicting the consequences of accidental and unintended radiation exposure.

anti-green:"I am not complaining about the application of LNTH to regulation. I am very critical of the application of LNTH to predicting the consequences of accidental and unintended radiation exposure."

You mean on an individual basis at very low doses, right?

I'd have thought that if you're 'answering Barry Brook', the best place to do that would be on the forum he hosts (http://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/index.cgi), which has quite a liberal moderation policy. But never mind that.

On energy safety, a summary was recently published in Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/).
Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

Sorry about formatting horrors, but hopefully you can still draw your own conclusions.

At first I planned to read this article and comment on it in a normal fashion, but it quickly became apparent that its author knows nothing about nuclear power. As some have already stated in the comments, his confusion about LFTR and IFR systems is bizarre, as if two entirely different technologies are somehow mixed up in a melange in his head. The rest of the piece is so riddled with ignorance on so many levels that, rather than provide constructive commentary on fine points, I can only agree with John Bennetts, the commenter who said, "This author is definitely not sufficiently knowledgeable to be trusted" (an understatement if ever there was one!) and "OnLineOpinion, by publishing this tripe, has displayed a need for better editorial guidance." Kudos to you, John. You managed two extreme understatements in a single post.

Is there any editorial guidance at Online Opinion? Were they on vacation the day this one came in?

The real essence of the issue is addressed by the March edition of The Economist "Nuclear power- the dream that failed" http://www.economist.com/node/21549936.

Nuclear power is too expensive, too dirty, and too reliant on government indeminties and subsidies. Nuclear power is clearly linked with nuclear weapons proliferation- the majority of current nuclear weapons states started with nuclear power only "for peaceful purposes". Using liquid sodium as a coolant is never going to work safely- it explodes with any contact with air and water. Sixty years after we first had nuclear power generation we still have no long term high level waste storages anywhere in the world.

Much of the EU is phasing out reactors by 2030. As renewables get cheaper,and baseload storages improve, nuclear is clearly obsolete technology.

All these negative comments! It's almost like an exercise in shutting up the peasantry if they dare to have an opinion.!
Very few of the points in my article are answered.

Apart from just one comment from pro nuclear Peter Lang, where he acknowledges the expense problem for Australia in getting nuclear power, these negative responses are pretty much a mixture of:
* rubbishing me personally
*dazzling the readers with scientific data, much of which is incomprehensible to the ordinary person
* condemnation of renewable energy
* dubious stuff about radiation not really being all that bad

I note that two writers chastise Online Opinion for publishing such tripe as my article.
Well, I've just sent Online Opinion another one. See what you can do with that one, if they are brave enough to publish another article from a nurse, who is not even a nuclear physicist. Noel Wauchope

Goodonya Noel "jimbonic" Wauchope, you have stirred up a solid and informative debate - though most of it is far too techno for me to appreciate. Still, many others are obviously greatly appreciative of the opportunity to air their knowledge and their pet perspectives.

I like the idea of new generation solar, so I'll stick with that and hope for the best.

Noel, ever thought of changing your name to Noelle? (Just a thought.)

Sodium cooling has a very bad track record. The near disaster at the Fermi Fast Breeder and the accidents the Monju fast breeder has suffered tend to indicate that sodium cooling is a no no. It is retrograde technology proven unsafe in previous eras. The money wasted on sodium cooled reactors in reactors directly led to unsafe ECCS in Mk1 reactors generically. (See the Ergen report). Further, why merely please foreign reactor builders when Australia Engineers have concluded as follows:

“The Magazine of Engineers Australia”, Vol 80, No. 9, Sept 2008, page 20

“Economically viable Power from the Sun

Half of Australia’s renewable energy target could be generated from solar power by 2020, according to engineering services company WorleyParsons. Speaking at the company’s full-year results presentation last month, the managing director of the company’s EcoNomics initiative Peter Meurs said the power would come from solar thermal powerstations which would be based on mature and proven technology already in use in California. A full-scale powerstation could be built without going through various pilot stages.

Meurs said the company’s research has found that Australia’s desert regions would be ideal locations for such plants and the optimal size would be 250 Mega Watts. The first plant could be completed by 2011 and a total of 34 plants by 2020. Potential locations would be desert regions not too far from industrial users, for instance the Pilbara region in Western Australia. end quote.

Further, within the time span the non engineer Brook talks of, the Higgs Boson will have been isolated and the power of the neutron at last described properly. Fission is not the end of science. The vast sums it has stolen from government since 1942 is out of all proportion to the benefits it has failed to deliver. Even Dr H bomb, Edward Teller though that reactors were so risky they should be built deep underground.

Uh-uh Noel, you can't have it both ways. By all means write what you like on whatever technical issue you like, whether you're a nurse, nuclear physicist or nappy changer. But if you're going to play in that sandpit, if you're going advance a position on what are fundamentally technical issues, you don't get to throw up your hands and refuse to engage with 'incomprehensible' scientific information when that position is challenged. Otherwise you're just inventing your own reality.

Further, I think the newspaper article Noel is responding to is, actually, a great piece of nuclear futurism. It is in the same vein as those written by Edward Teller and the great, loyal Australian, Ernest Titterton (while he was in the pay of Britain and the US). They both wrote of the glories of nuclear powered automobiles. I am sorely disappointed this dream, along with the nuclear powered aircraft that the US spent billions on (to be shelved by President Kennedy because it was a waste of money), never came to pass. I would dearly love to buy strontium thermal batteries to power my 1956 VW Beetle. Imagine 190 kilos of strontium 90 in the nose of my beetle, powering a big electric motor in the back. It would be absolutely zero emissions. Until I hit a tree or roll it over. Slim risk really, it will never happen to me... So Adelaide would rarely need to be evacuated.... Accidents only happen to other people don't they? And in other countries? When there is a solar energy spill, it's called "Having a nice day".

Well done, Noel.

I thank you.

For this fine article and for your future further eloquent expert input into the campaign to get Barry Brook dismissed from Adelaide Uni.

The Bye Bye Barry Brook campaign is just beginning.

How long will Barry last as the atomic academic puppet professor?

The smart money is on "not very long".

Bye Bye Barry Brook.

Bye Bye Barry Brook

is a campaign for the dismissal of puppet professor atomic academic Barry Brook from Adelaide University for incompetence and malfeasance.

Brook has made statements in support of the nuclear industry which are false.

Brook has made false statements in support of the nuclear industry which are outside his field of competence.

Brook has made false statements in support of the nuclear industry which are outside his field of competence and which are certain to lead to adverse public health outcomes.

These charges are evidenced by Brook's public statements during March and April 2011, regarding the developing disaster at the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in northern Japan.

These charges are evidenced by Brook's public statements during 2011 and 2012, promoting the false and criminal notion of "radiophobia", whereby Australians have been fraudulently deceived into allowing nuclear industry activities which inevitably cause great public health harms.

>>dazzling the readers with scientific data, much of which is incomprehensible to the ordinary person<<

What a low-down dirty underhand tactic! The hide of those bastards: making use of scientific data in a debate about technological issues is definitely not cricket.

So I eagerly await your retraction of your article which is full of scientific data much of which is incomprehensible to the ordinary person. But I doubt that will happen because I'm sure you stand by every word you've said.

Good for you. Everyone has a right to an opinion on nuclear power. And boy do they love to exercise it. If commentators with some knowledge of the topic want to point some of the errors in your argument then good for them too - even if you can't understand everything they say.

Cheers,

Tony

The accident at Chernobyl was predicted at the Atomic Energy conference
in Vienna in 1956, but the Russians elected to ignore the warning.

The accident at Fukashima should have been anticipated and could have
been avoided by building the plants on the West Japan coast.
The plants did not fail but were flooded.
The plate divide is not far east of Japan.

The third accident in the US was just a straight out failure of the
plant and is the only true accident, or rather design failure.

So two failures should not have happened if humans took into account
geography in one case and human pride in the other.
Those two failure scenarios could have been prevented by review
at the planning stage.