The biggest nuclear disaster on the planet continues at Fukushima with 3 reactors in melt down and the nuke industry continues in denial.

Nuclear Fission is not the answer because the waste remains for hundreds to millions of years. The present technology is antiquated and dangerous.

Perhaps nuclear fusion is an answer, as this is the union of atoms which has far less dangerous waste.

Good essay Martin; perception is everything and the nuclear industry hasn't helped with some stupid decisions.

Thorium is the way.

Wow what an effort.
Your absolutely right, unless the fledgling renewable energy is in fact cheaper.
Perhaps, you could focus your undeniable powers to that question.

I suspect, you will find that renewable energy has only one disadvantage, it threatens to make energy free! Free! Free!

Now if the energy industry could just be sure we won't all just get off the grid, if sun, wind could be charged for - why do I suspect this talk of nuclear power would quietly excuse itself.

It is always those bloody Europeans. If it wasnt already bad enough giving themselves long annual leave and luxuries working conditions and crazy pensions. They are destroying business. What are these Germans thinking, going around extracting 20% of their electricity from solar panels - and from a country that has little sunlight. And those Damn Albino Scandanavians and their wind power, they are all socialist commos.

My god, How is a legitimate industry to survive if everyone can just paint their roofs, attach a battery and have free power? It boggles the mind.

Good article, Martin. Thank you.

Readers may be interested in this pamphlet explaining how we misunderstand radiation and how the radiation limits could (I'd suggest should) be set much higher than they are - based on the evidence. If we raised the limits to where they should be, based on the evidence, the perceptions of risk could change dramatically. Have a look a the brochure:
http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf

Excerpt from near the end:

"RADIATION POLITICS

Exposure limits that were set by LNT theory
ignore observed low-level radiation effects.

Public radiation safety limits have become
more restrictive, from 150 mSv/y (1948) to
5 mSv/y (1957) to 1 mSv/y (1991).

These rules are political and inconsistent.
Nuclear workers are allowed 50 mSv/y, and
astronauts 500 mSv/y. EPA’s limit for indoor
radon is 8 mSv/y, but 0.04 mSv/y for tritium in
drinking water. EPA limits Yucca Mountain
exposure to < 0.1 mSv/y for 10,000 years.

The LNT fallacy that any radiation can kill you
led to the ALARA principle (as low as
reasonably achievable). But achievability is
based on ever-changing technology capability,
not health effects. LNT and ALARA ratchet
limits lower and increase costs and fear.

Radiation is safe within limits.

An evidence-based radiation safety limit would
be 100 mSv/y. Ending LNT and ALARA rules
will enable the full environmental and
economic benefits of green nuclear power."

* countries around the world (like USA, UK, France, Finland, Russia, China, India, South Korea, UAE) would not continue to build new nuclear power plants to supply their growing need for energy.*

And the fact that big business is salivating at the thought of a slew of new power stations and huge profits is not part of the "growing need"?

If radiation is so harmless why are the workers trying to clean up Fukushima wearing protective clothing and why are the public not allowed to re enter the exclusion zone around the plant?
Why is all produce from this area banned from consumption?

*the known ability of nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the health risks from burning fossil fuels.*
When you take into the account the amount of fossil fuel needed to mine uranium, process it, transport, transport the waste, provide facilities for the waste, how can it possibly have the ability to reduce emissions?

Having seen the list of articles by this author, it is apparent that he has some sort of vested interest in pushing nuclear.

Yes it is all a matter of perception.
And that is why the nuclear industry has engaged a massive propaganda "public relations" exercise ever since the beginning of the nuclear age.
Check out the "glowing" prognosis of the early government and corporate propaganda.
Which is of course what they are doing now - the softening up process.
A prelude for the totalitarian police state "governed" by the mad scientists.

Never mind that ever since the first mushroom cloud appeared in Japan humankind has been faced with the very real prospect of a humanly caused universal holocaust and/or a nuclear winter. Referring to Robert Oppenheimer, humankind quite literally became the potential "destroyer of worlds".
In my opinion the sinister mushroom cloud was a potent symbol for the smithereening of the human psyche. And also a signal of the seeming ultimate "success" of the Western technological imperative. To gain control of "matter".
Remember the time of MAD - mutually assured destruction.
Meanwhile of course, "Jesus" is coming any day now.

The author has the story straight.

Dr Robert Hargraves has assessed the risk ratio for the various fuel chains in deaths per Gigawatt year as;
Coal 0.35
Oil 0.38
Natural Gas 0.08
LPG 2.9
Hydro 0.9
Nuclear 0.0085

There has not been any reduction in life expectancy for anyone involved in the Fukushima cooling water failure which led to partial melt downs. New AP1000 reactors can continue to be safe for seven days without external water and electricity supplies. An anti explosion catalyst was left out of the Fukushima plant.

In 2010 twenty two energy disasters killed 608 people not one of whom was in the nuclear area yet nuclear accounts for about 14% of the world total electricity generation.

The no threshold standards are ridiculous. In Taiwan the cancer rates were 4% of normal expectations (for a matched population) for occupants of a contaminated building that had been occupied for 20 years.

Risk isn't solely about likely incidence, it is also about the effects of failure, the consequences.

Maybe someone would like to talk about the consequences of the failure in Japan?

Over many years I have seen many, many promises that the safe long storage of waste is 'just around the corner'. But obviously that corner has never been reached, yet highly developed, technology savvy countries like the US continue to work on that next 'corner'. Why is it for example that President Obama is saddled with the huge expense of 'temporary' storage of waste?

Got to give it to the US State Department though, they found and ably massaged the visiting colonial drongo Prime Ministers visiting from Oz. The US and other countries all have land they can use for storage. What has prevented them from doing just that, storing their waste? Speaking of which, what about that land in Oz that is still fenced off after the Poms let nuclear bombs off. Maybe someone can say when that land will become available for use?

>"Risk isn't solely about likely incidence, it is also about the effects of failure, the consequences.
Maybe someone would like to talk about the consequences of the failure in Japan?"

Dead right! Good Question. No fatalities from radiation, unlikely to be any. On the other hand, 1000 fatalities as a direct result of the (mostly unnecessary) evacuation, and tens of thousands more as a result of the long term effects of the damage to Japan's economy (and the world economy) by the nonsensical act of shutting down all the nuclear power stations. Plus the many thousands of fatalities due to ramping up use of fossil fuels and taking decades to get back to where should have been if not for the ridiculous overreaction to the accident.

You asked about consequences: Read the short brochure to get a better understanding of the real consequences of low levels of radiation:
http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf

No mention either of the costs of decommissioning those nuke reactors either and where to store what is removed from site.

How many billions to decommission one?

Maybe Oz could become the new dumping ground for the world's nuke powered warships too. Just drive them onto an Aussie beach. Heck, 700kms of beaches on the Yorke Peninsula alone. Honestly now, how much beach does anyone really need with all of that harmful solar radiation?

Fair bet the US State Department has already thought of that. It was a clever idea that 'forever' ownership of toxic stuff mined for them. The US State Department is streets ahead of those drongo Aussie PMs. It only takes a bit of flattery and a good time while they are in the US and Oz is the US State Department's for the taking.

Facts certainly are limited.

Presenting an extremely complex issue also involves artfulness and persuasion.

About the only constant in the nuclear debate are that almost all nuclear advocates are MALE and from an ENGINEERING-applied science background. I wonder why?

Facts are viewpoints. Facts are relative - not irrefutable.

New things happen – things not even considered by engineers. For example 9/11 consisted of smashing full sized passenger jets into large buildings. The engineering design of the World Trade Centre did not consider large aircraft collisions likely.

Would a large passenger aircraft intentionally crashed into a nuclear reactor cause a problem?

Some facts can be less disputable than others. For example the residential area previously part of Lucas Heights in Sydney was renamed Barden Ridge in 1996 to increase the real estate value of housing in the area.

That is real estate agents had determined that housing in "Lucas Heights" had been harder to sell and at lower prices because of proximity to the reactor complex...

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Heights,_New_South_Wales

Is "our house is harder to sell and at a below market price" a worry for home-owners near future reactor projects here in Australia?

Pete

There is allegedly 'peak-oil'? What about 'peak-uranium'?

As for all of that"Gosh, take the nuke waste, it could be worth something one day", as if the Yanks would be giving it away if it wasn't prohibitively expensive to store and its future an enduring pestilence?

For me the main issue is trust.

For example. Nuclear accidents may result in the evacuation of cities or parts of cities. Not only is the resulting financial cost enormous, the reactor in question ends up having produced a large negative net contribution to energy supply due to the need to replace dwellings, factories etc.

Why are these costs never factored into cost and efficiency figures?

Honesty generally is not the nuclear industry’s forte (recall the old mantra that accidents can;t happen?). I’d be prepared to support thorium reactors, but believe the nuclear industry to be too disreputable to be trusted with anything less.

@onthebeach

As well "as if the Yanks would be giving it away if it wasn't prohibitively expensive to store and its future an enduring pestilence?"

If storing nuclear waste is such a potential money earner why aren't countries with large empty areas like Canada and Russia turning waste storage into a paying proposition?

Both Russia and Canada already have long term established nuclear industries.
--

@drgal1

I'd also add nuclear companies keep the profits but inflict the costs of nuclear accidents on the taxpayer.

Hence the Japanese Government is paying $billions in taxpayer money to Tepco. See "Japanese government to bear more Fukushima cleanup costs for Tepco" http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/japan-tepco-idUKL3N0JY1R620131220 :

"Under the new plan, the [Japanese] government, which essentially nationalised Tepco last year with a 1 trillion yen ($9.59 billion) injection of public funds, will nearly double to 9 trillion yen ($86.35 billion) the amount of interest-free loans it provides the utility through the state-backed Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Corp (NDLFC)."

Nuclear advocates can talk around these costs as much as they like.

Pete

Why did this author bother? Using facts against hysterics. Buddy you are wasting your time. See none of these anti-nukes want any thing but the power to look sad and say no, sorry NO! They are also happy to physically attack anyone who does not heed their foot-stamping no!
If solar and wind are so good lets see Christine Milne get the power turned off of her house and all her greens do the same. They can show by example, oh yes no cars and no first class air travel for them. I apologise for being flippant but really.

For what it's worth, here is something I read several years ago.

There are representatives of "Big Oil" at every level of the US government and they have moved from being lobbyists to positions of control.

Since Kennedy, every US President has come from the Oil Industry or from an Oil State.

The exception was Jimmy Carter but he managed - on behalf of the oil men who control most of the country - to put the nuclear scare into everybody. It was under his watch that the drift to nuclear power was effectively stopped.
Before then, their Civil Defence programme had everybody convinced that it was possible to survive a nuclear war.

Now there's a handy conspiracy theory.

However I also read that if every coal fired powered station in the world was suddenly replaced with a nuclear reactor, we would run out of uranium in seven years.

Also, the total amount of energy it takes to construct a reactor (including mining and processing the components, manufacturing and transport and so on) is greater than the amount of power it will ever produce in its lifetime. You don't get something for nothing from nature, no matter how much you manipulate it.

In the end it comes down to power - electrical, political and economic.

Sidestepping the nuclear part of the discussion to touch on the part thats about perceptions vs reality I saw an interesting TED talk recently on environmental perceptions. Leyla Acaroglu: Paper beats plastic? How to rethink environmental folklore #TED : http://on.ted.com/g03Eq

"Most of us want to do the right thing when it comes to the environment. But things aren’t as simple as opting for the paper bag, says sustainability strategist Leyla Acaroglu. A bold call for us to let go of tightly-held green myths and think bigger in order to create systems and products that ease strain on the planet."

Worth a look for those not too entrenched in either side of the nuclear debate.

R0bert

It’s strange that Australians, with no experience of nuclear power apart from the selling of the raw material, are more concerned about it than countries that have had it for a long time. Japan is the latest ‘disaster’ invoked by Australian naysayers; but a few weeks ago, a Japanese friend visiting Australia wondered what all the fuss was about, and she lives in Tokyo. There is evidence of huge upgrades in safety, but the usual suspects close their ears.

If we are running out of cheap energy, and there is nothing to replace it (windmills and the sun will certainly not), then it is inevitable that we will have to go nuclear like the other countries without natural resources. As the Meerkat says, “Simple”.

In 2010 the four Australian Learned Academies tackled the issue of the peculiarly Australian aversion to nuclear energy in their report "Understanding the Formation of Attitudes to Nuclear Power in Australia". On the whole, that work was not terribly successful. It gave much history but in the end the gap between attitudes in Australia and other developed economies remains mysterious. To the extent that this Forum emanates from Australia (and one has no way of judging that) it might have added some useful information to help solve the mystery by offering some representative Australian feedback. I don't think it does, which is a pity. Doubtless all of the factors Martin Nicholson lists are at work here. But why is the resultant different for Australians? As Stephen Fry would say on QI, 'nobody knows'.

*If we are running out of cheap energy, and there is nothing to replace it*

Then why not reduce our use and even (gasp) lower the population over time?

Thanks tombee. I wasn't aware of that report.

Robert le Page,

I'm all for a small population, but if the doomsayers are right, and we do run out of cheap power, we will still be in the muck. And remember, both major parties are big immigration junkies, and have never indicated that they will change.

Alas JBowyer. I fear you are correct. Disappointing though.

JBowyer,

I agree too. It is sad to see supposedly intelligent people display such an extreme example of "denial"!

They deny clear evidence that nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity; the real, measurable consequences of accidents in terms of fatalities and illnesses are small, they produce the lowest emissions per TWh when embedded in a complete system (electricity network) and providing a large proportion of the electricity for that system; could be much cheaper than fossil fuels if the greenies and anti-nukes would get out of the way and stop preventing progress.

@Peter Lang

Its amazing how pro-nuclear blokes Deny the cost of the Fukushima cleanup:

$95 Billion is just a portion of the money Japanese taxpayers are paying to Tepco the Japanese Company that owns/owned the Fukushima nuclear reactors.

See "Japanese government to bear more Fukushima cleanup costs for Tepco" http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/japan-tepco-idUKL3N0JY1R620131220 :

"Under the new plan, the [Japanese] government, which essentially nationalised Tepco last year with a 1 trillion yen ($9.59 billion) injection of public funds, will nearly double to 9 trillion yen ($86.35 billion) the amount of interest-free loans it provides the utility through the state-backed Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Corp (NDLFC)."

Nuclear advocates can talk around these costs as much as they like.

Fukushima was considered extremely unlikely by Japanese engineers - but then it happened.

What extremely unlikely event could happen to a large power reactor built just outside of Sydney or Melbourne?

Planta

I believe that the MAIN reason our society in general does not discuss (and is even a taboo subject, like nationalism or Aus culture) Nuclear Energy possibilities rests in the utter insanity of the LEFT mindset.

It is not, as most think, because people "fear risks" like Chernobyl, that is not even the reason the average "Lefty" supports the anti-open policy on the topic. Like everything with the Left and their motives, they act in herd-form, group-think and tribalistic, bullying mentality and simply follow the others and what is already being done or not done.

That is to say, they simply ARE against the topic being considered. The numerous reasons they use to support themselves like the Chernobyl risks etc. are absolutely pathetic when one actually considers the dangers and real possibilities as well as the actual benefits of one day finding a safer nuclear way which CANNOT occur in such a culture of "taboo" surrounding the issue.

Despicable MOB, HERD, bigots!

The left have invaded even our learning institutions such that the average university in Australia (especially in ARTS) feels like being in some middle-ages church run by the Nazi intelligence for propaganda.

Young people are drilled and brainwashed into thinking that the left's entire agenda and views are JUST CORRECT (absolute TRUTH) like some religion. The slightest hint of rebellious words can be career ending, but at least will eternally brand you in ALL eyes to be some stupid, right-wing bigot who hates non-white people and poor people, and who fears difference and change.

This intellectual poisonous disease is the culprit behind the taboo on Nuclear power talk

Yes Matthew S

Those damned Chaps of the blaggard Left:

Shake their Buddies.

Shake their BUDDIES!

Good night and Buddha Bless

Poyda

Plantagenet,

do u think u could perhaps, as a world-wide exclusive, the very first time in history for a Leftist, "EXPLAIN" and argue some of your reasons for why you must disagree with my arguments!

Please make the attempt at least!

I will even invite the Guinness Book of Records to document the event.

We could build more dams, but then the Greens would yell bloody murder at the loss of habitat and diversity. They want to shut down coal because of pollution and emissions, and then they block their ears when it comes to nuclear. So they put forward three alternatives - wind, wave, and solar. The rest are just pie-in-the-sky sci-fi energy alternatives hundreds of years away from becoming viable.

Trouble is you could cover the landscape with bird-killing, eyesore wind turbines and still not meet base-load power. You could cover every roof in Australia with solar panels (and indirectly be responsible for massive soil and water pollution in China from their manufacture) and still not meet base-load power. You could clutter up the sea and add to even more visual pollution (not to mention likely interfere with migratory routes of sea creatures like whales) with wave-power generators, and still not meet base-load power. You could combine all three expensive systems and yet still be subject to grey-outs due to times when the wind doesn't blow, or when the sky is overcast vastly reducing the efficiency of solar.

So do you ever wonder why the Greens and Progressives push for unrealistic, unreasonable, irrational and immature forms of energy? The answer is simple - the Greens/Progressives don't want society to flourish, they don't want society to enjoy cheap power, they don’t want society to become affluent - because a subdued, cowed, weakened and poor society is a society better able to be controlled by the State - by Big Government. This whole issue was never about the environment - it is entirely about controlling populations, because access to cheap energy would liberate humanity, and liberty is something that totalitarians abhore.

p.s. Just another thought to muse upon - why do you think the Greens/Progressives came up with the Carbon Tax. At its heart it was to make coal-fired energy (and everything that relied upon it) more expensive. Expensive power = impoverished society = society that is less free. Remember that when you next open your carbon-tax enhanced electricity bill...

Pebble reactors would preclude the possibility of yet another meltdown!
However, I prefer cheaper than coal thorium, which uses consumes most of its fuel and produces very little waste, which has a useful life as very long life batteries, in satellites and such.
The real reason some people hate nuclear energy, I believe, is for the very same reason they hate hydro dams, even where the wall is little more than a harmless two metre weir. Namely, because it allows industrialization, commercial development, food production and population growth to continue apace.
I remember one well known activist saying, that he would sooner allow a coal fired power station than dam the Franklin. (Pure unbridled hypocrisy!?)
Perhaps if we had dammed the Franklin, we might have been able to exploit the virtually free and ultra reliable energy, to retain a vehicle building industry in this country.
Rhrosty.

Matthew S

In response to your venom against the "Left" and "Arts" but devoid of argument, I'll restate my arguments which I already posted on this thread - if you'd bothered to notice.

New things happen – things not even considered by engineers. For example 9/11 consisted of smashing full sized passenger jets into large buildings. The engineering design of the World Trade Centre did not consider large aircraft collisions likely.

Would a large passenger aircraft intentionally crashed into a nuclear reactor cause a problem?

Some facts can be less disputable than others. For example the residential area previously part of Lucas Heights in Sydney was renamed "Barden Ridge" in 1996 to increase the real estate value of housing in the area.

That is real estate agents had determined that housing in "Lucas Heights" had been harder to sell and at lower prices because of proximity to the reactor complex...see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Heights,_New_South_Wales

Is "our house is harder to sell and at a below market price" a worry for home-owners near future reactor projects here in Australia?

If storing nuclear waste is such a potential money earner that nuclear advocates claim, why aren't countries with large empty areas like Canada and Russia turning waste storage into a paying proposition? Both Russia and Canada already have long term established nuclear industries.

Nuclear companies keep the profits but inflict the costs of nuclear accidents on the taxpayer.

Hence the Japanese Government is paying $billions in taxpayer money to Tepco. See "Japanese government to bear more Fukushima cleanup costs for Tepco" http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/japan-tepco-idUKL3N0JY1R620131220 :

"Under the new plan, the [Japanese] government, which essentially nationalised Tepco last year with a 1 trillion yen ($9.59 billion) injection of public funds, will nearly double to 9 trillion yen ($86.35 billion) the amount of interest-free loans it provides the utility through the state-backed Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Corp (NDLFC)."

Address each of these issues if you can.

As difficult as it is for the intellectually challenged, it is not nuclear waste current threatening the total annihilation of all life on this planet! However, carbon is!
The Chinese are opening a new coal fired power station every week, and there is more radioactive material exiting coal-fired smokestacks, than any nuclear facility.
And single issue activists, reportedly claim they would sooner build a coal-fired power station than dam a minor river.
Russia and the US are currently storing their waste in relatively safe, ceramic drums, which are stored inside stainless steel drums, which are stored inside caste iron casks.
A demonstration, was reportedly organised, to smash a remotely controlled loco into a cask at around ninety miles an hour. The loco was totaled, while the cask remained undamaged.
This suggests that those who quote waste as a problem are politically motivated, blinkered ideologues, and can only countenance solutions that include depopulation, deindustrialization and a return to preindustrialization lifestyles.
That takes care of around one billion of us, what do we do with the rest? Survival of the fittest perhaps?
Which would in the first instance, rid the world of all the highly impracticable environmentalist dreamers and antinuclear naysayers; who would send warships to defend whales, but not each other or the nation!?
We who have in recent decades spent something in the order of 700 billions trying to prop up uneconomic industries, which has only ever helped said industries to offshore their enterprises; surely wouldn't be too disturbed by the expenditure of some 2.5 billions, decommissioning extremely dated nuclear power stations.
We for our part don't need to ever cross that bridge, given we could simply build cheaper than coal, thorium power stations!
Rhrosty.

Giday Rhrosty

If only nuclear waste was so simple.

Once spent fuel rods are extracted from reactor use these still hot rods must spend several years in actively circulating coolant pools - to cool down. THEN they can be diluted and put in drums.

Usually these spent fuel coolant pools are co-located with the reactors - under the concrete domes - because of high security requirements, risks and costs.

At Fukushima spents fuel rods were in coolant pools that ceased to circulate and the subsequent explosions are (recent) history.

Here's the first of several Fukushima explosions that have caused the enforced depopulation of a wide area http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3DW33V-MtE

Leakage of high level nuclear waste is still happening from those drums you mention.

Regards

Pete

Good news.

ABC News, February 25, 2014, reports:

"Hundreds of Japanese people will soon be allowed to return to their homes, two years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster forced them to leave.

A 20 kilometre exclusion zone was declared around the nuclear plant after an earthquake and tsunami triggered a reactor meltdown in March 2011.

...Over the next two years, up to 30,000 people will be allowed to return to their homes in the original exclusion zone, thrown up in a bid to protect people from the harmful effects of leaking radiation."

see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-25/an-evacuated-fukushima-residents-to-be-allowed-to-return-home/5281628

With at least 30,000 people still banned from returning home due to radiation fears many Australian nuclear advocates, who seek to downplay the impact of Fukushima, are probably engineers who wish to make money out of nuclear power.

Pete