"The 'peak oil' idea is dead because of the massive rise in shale oil and gas production"

Why? Because Saint Monbiot said so after reading a non-peer reviewed (and now widely criticised and debunked) report by Maugeri? If you claim to be the rational mathematician then you need to look more closely at this issue and understand that "reserves" are not the same as productin rates. (Peak oil is a peak RATE of oil production.) You also need to undertand the NET production of energy and that unconventional oil sources are slow to produce and have a low NET energy.

Oherwise it was an interesting article but would benefit from a description of how differentially dangerous different forms of radiation are. Seemingly paradoxically (not in reality of course) alpha radiation may have the shortest half-length in air (and so be the easiest to shield against) but it is the most carcinogenic because more energy is deposited in a single cell when it absorbs an alpha particle than is absorbed by a gamma ray "skipping" its way through tissue. Plutonium 238 and 239 emit alpha particles when they decay so absorbing plutonium contamination can be a very, very bad thing. We have not seen the end of the Fukushima tragedy - they have no idea how they are going to clean up those three reactors that melted down and that will probably one day release radioactive material through the bottom of their containment vessels.

Radiophobia aside few seem to be asking what will happen when gas becomes prohibitively expensive. Gas enables intermittent sources like wind and solar to meet demand. For example during a late afternoon heatwave while aircons are on max is when PV output wanes while wind farms are becalmed. Some will point out that last week in the US nukes had to be throttled back to due to cooling problems which simply means they need a bigger cooling system.

What Australia is doing now is increasing our gas dependence the same time we are exporting record amounts as LNG. Something will have to give. If we are serious about big (as opposed to trivial) emissions cuts we will have to objectively consider nuclear baseload. Alas some get the heebie jeebies just thinking about this so the cycle repeats; subsidised minor renewables underpinned by gas. I believe for example that Adelaide's 34c per kwh domestic electricity rate is among the world's highest. And on it goes.

“Ionising radiation: perhaps we have little to fear except fear itself”

Good point.

Nuclear energy is about the safest way to supply electricity. Yet we are scared stiff of it. How irrational is that?

Because we are so scared of it we place ever increasing regulations on it, so it is now too expensive for most countries to adopt.

And what is the consequence of that? The consequence is we continue to burn fossil fuels which cause about 10 to 100 times more fatalities per unit of electricity supplied.

That’s right: 10 to 100 times more fatalities from pollution from coal fired power plants than from nuclear generation for the same amount of electricity generated. And that is after nearly 60 years of nuclear power, 15,000 reactor-years of operation, and only one accident causing fatalities, with very few at that.

How rational is it to ban nuclear, or make it prohibitively expensive by excessive regulations, and by so doing cause us to continue to use a far less safe technology instead?

Regulatory ratcheting increased the cost of nuclear power by about a factor of four by 1990 compared with what it could have been. It has probably doubled again since 1990.

The anti-nuclear scaremongering - by groups like Greenpeace – over the past 50 odd years has scared the population and created radiation phobia. If not for this, nuclear would be far more advanced now, far cheaper and safer, and global CO2 emissions would be 10% to 20% lower that they are now. Importantly we’d be on a much faster path to reduce global emissions. Thank Greenpeace et al. for higher emissions and Carbon Tax.

I can predict with absolute certainty that anyone exposed to low-level ionising radiation will be dead within 150 years. Clearly, Something Must Be Done!

michael_in_adelaide

the peak oil concept was dead long before Monbiot said anything and the report he was referring to was just one of several on the issue that has killed it. Denounciations by green zealots does not count as debunking, incidentally. In any case, peak oil only ever referred to easy lift land reservoirs. Anyway, the evidence now is overwhelming that its dead. Time to adjust, as he has.

As for the main conclusions of the article, if you seriously believe the stuff on emissions, then nuclear is the only feasible option..

An interesting and measured article; to be compared with this from Fairfax:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/japan-nuclear-fallout-may-cause-1300-cancer-deaths-20120718-22akp.html#ixzz210yyhogG

What hysterical tripe and as good an example as you could get as to why the wretched Fairfax brand is only read by inner city elites and other sundry posers.

Bolt puts the thing into perspective:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_missing_facts_that_explode_the_new_fukushima_alarm/

Fairfax and Aunty ABC both picked up the Bloomberg article which commented, inaccurately, on work due to be published today by researchers at Stanford University. Unfortunately, the death estimate which appears in the Stanford press release was multiplied by 10 by Bloomberg to make a headline with impact.

The Stanford quote is :
"Radiation from Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster may eventually cause approximately 130 deaths and 180 cases of cancer, mostly in Japan, Stanford researchers have calculated.

The estimates have large uncertainty ranges, but contrast with previous claims that the radioactive release would likely cause no severe health effects.

The numbers are in addition to the roughly 600 deaths caused by the evacuation of the area surrounding the nuclear plant directly after the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and meltdown."

In response to Michael's concern about Pu238, this may or may not be present and, if so, only in very small quantities. Check Wikipedia or other sources. The half-life is 87.7 years and it is indeed an alpha emitter. Michael has provided no estimate of the probable exposure levels to Pu, so I suggest that he should heed his own advice about St Monbiot, re the lack of value of a person's opinion in the absense of analysis and data. St Michael has provided neither data nor analysis regarding Pu 239 and Pu239 to support his subjective opinion.

The ABC's article is at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-18./fukushima-radiation-may-kill-1300-people/4137366

I advised the ABC in writing of its error yesterday afternoon. The article is still displayed on their website without amendment or further comment or response to me. Our ABC has been sucked in by an incorrect headline.

Interesting article, and good point made by one poster, illuminating the difference and effects, between alpha and gamma radiation.
People living in Scotland have for centuries been exposed to high levels of background radiation. Due to buildings that are mainly composed of granite, which given the thorium content, lifts the levels of radiation and exposure.
It seems to have done the Scots nae harrrum?
We can produce all the domestic gas and hot water we will ever need, simply by processing all the biological waste we produce, in onsite smell free digesters.
The methane can then be stored in simple bladders and then fed into modern ceramic fuel cells to produce on demand power.
There's also older thorium reactors, discontinued in the 70's, because there was no weapons spin-off?
Unlike oxide reactors, which consume just 3.5 kilograms out of every 100, thorium reactors use up over 90% of their liquidised fuel, with the little waste produced, being vastly less toxic and eminently suitable, for very long life lithium beryllium fluorine, space batteries.
Wave power also supplies overnight and or very dependable power.
Sodium storage ponds seem to be suitable for storing solar thermal power, making solar thermal part of the available alternatives.
We're told that our hot rocks could supply all the power we'd ever need for at least a century.
The private developers seem to be stalling or milking their projects for all the govt subsidies they can; given this seemingly endless source of multi million dollar funding, will indubitably dry up, once the project(s) prove(s) commercial?
If we would prove hot racks as a reliable power source? We need more than just govt dollars, but govt pilot projects as well!
Besides, govt supplied power, provided at virtual cost, invariably is one third or less of, greed is good, fully privatised power?
And that's what we need to keep costs down and the competition honest, as we transition to a carbon free or carbon neutral economy!
Rhrosty.

I write in support of the article by John Ridd. There can be no direct evidence in either support or refute the LNTH. This is because the effect, if any is well below the limits of statistical and therefore epidemiological detectability.

There are sound biological reasons for thinking that any dose response curve below say 50-100 mSv exposure is very unlikely to be linear. I note some of the possible biological mechanisms which may act in either direction, most likely towards minimising the risk of low exposure:

• DNA repair especially for single strand brakes, but less exact for double stand or cluster I write in support of the article by Mr Ridd. Clearly there is no, and never will be direct evidence for brakes.

• Apoptosis or programmed cell death. (Dead cells cannot become malignant!)

• Bystander (cell) effects.

• Hormesis or radiation adaptive mechanisms.

SO WHY RETAIN LNTH IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION?

• It provides a workable and practical framework for legislation and insurance claims.

• It is not possible to set an agreed threshold. In fact a threshold may vary for different populations and different body tissues. As an example the thyroid tissue of young children maybe more sensitive to radiation, while that of adults much more resistant.

• The limits set for workers and the public and guidelines for medical diagnostic radiation exposure do not inhibit any legitimate task and compliance is not difficult for trained workers.

• The consequences of uncontrolled radiation by untrained and unqualified users may be catastrophic. Example skin burns to patients from inexpert use of cardiac fluoroscopy, or misuse of industrial radiation gauges.

On the other hand predictions of numbers of cancers and deaths based on “collective dose” and the LNTH are likely to be grossly exaggerated if not meaningless.

Allow me to make the prediction that without accidental or even diagnostic medical radiation exposure there will in the fullness of time be 100% mortality in all human populations, and about a quarter to a third of these deaths will be due to non-radiation induced cancer.

I apologise for the poor format of my last post. I seemed to have great difficukty with "cut and paste."

Thanks for all your accusations JohnBennetts. If you read my previous comment carefully you will see that I made no assertions about current levels of plutonium release at Fukushima. Your calls for me to provide more data are just another example of the constant attempts to accuse me of statements I have not made a la Cheryl or Curmudgeon.

Preston et al take one view of Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, 2012 Report 14, 1950 2003: An Overview of Cancer and Non- cancer Diseases. It is not the only view. Ian Goddard's review of the study comments:

"This landmark study of the survivors of the atomic bombings of Japan presents the strongest evidence to date that cancer risk not only exists at low levels of radiation, but may have greater risk per unit of dose than at higher doses. The study also shows that ionising radiation is associated with non cancerous diseases involving circulatory respiratory and digestive systems" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VAncqK6bl0&feature=share

Ian Goddard’s analysis of the report includes these points : The study examines linearity and non linearity in the response to low dose radiation, that is whether or not the accepted scientific consensus of linearity holds good that there is no safe low dose of radiation, and that the risk of cancer increases with increased dose. It confirms that there is no threshold below which radiation doses are harmless, and continues to affirm the linear dose response.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reviewed the study, and concluded "There is no longer a convenient excuse to avoid using the LNT to estimate consequences from real or projected releases of radioactive materials, even when the dose of concern is below 0.1 Sv." http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/13.full
Sure the UNSCEAR report is cautious - UNSCEAR, will publish a report in May 2013 that aims to give an analysis of radiation dosages among citizens and forecast health risks in the coming decades
In the meantime, it is commonsense to at least play safe, and be guided by the accepted principle that there is no level below which ionising radiation is safe.
And - that conclusion has been reinforced very recently by Oxford University's research on gamma radiation and leukaemia in children: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120612.html

Jimbonic,

You say:

“In the meantime, it is commonsense to at least play safe”

Yes, indeed.

And given that nuclear power is about the safest means of electricity generation, and 10 to 100 times safer than what we currently accept as our main source of electricity, isn’t it just “commonsense” that we should move as quickly as possible to adopt the safest and cleanest form of electricity generation – and the only one that can provide the quantity of electricity we need to meet our demand?

Isn’t that just “commonsense”?

If you agree, then isn’t it “commonsense” for the anti-nuclear activists to switch their advocacy and become enthusiastic supporters of the removal of all the impediments to nuclear power?

I find this whole debate grossly misleading for reasons that I do not understand.

It is perfectly true to state that the is no safe level of radiation.

However it is also true to state that there is nowhere on earth where radiation does not exist. Moreover, every 21 metre increase in altitude above sea level results in an increase of 1% in background radiation. (I wonder why that is not mentioned by the airlines). Travelling at 11000 metres means that radiation is more that 5 times what it is at sea level, and this is something that has to be considered by frequent passengers and aircrew.

The argument that nuclear power should be avoided because weapons can be made from the used fuel rods ignores the reactors (particularly thorium) that do not produce fissile by-products.

Conventional mining of coal around the world results in around 50,000 deaths of miners each year (mainly in China), and this is hardly mentioned. An event like Fukashima, which has not yet resulted in one death, is frontpage news.

The one optimistic thing about all this is that 100 years ago similar scare stories were spread about the use of electricity. With more familiarity, we seem to have got over this. Let us hope that the same will apply to nuclear.

Nuclear fission is only a passing phase until fusion is perfected. Fusion is the way of the future, without it mankind is doomed.