The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Nuclear power: no solution to climate change > Comments

Nuclear power: no solution to climate change : Comments

By Jim Green, published 6/12/2005

Jim Green argues the use of nuclear power is fraught with problems for little significant benefit.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Many of these criticisms are undoubtedly true; it's just that the alternatives are pipe dreams. By failing to address oil depletion and global warming with a seamless transition we now have to adopt nuclear as a lifeline. Otherwise we will be living in a world of anarchic failed economies and unstable climate. Some concerns can be mitigated such as reactor designs that do not lend themselves to sabotage or weapons production. Nuclear power can help transport via hydrogen and partial substitution of battery energy in cars. Several decades of nuclear power could provide enough time to settle questions such as sustainability and optimum population. Remember that while we shun nuclear power, countries like China will be going ahead.
Posted by Taswegian, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 9:34:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we listen to the greenies, in a few generations hence humans will be back to sitting in dark, cold caves growling over raw meat.
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 10:46:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I fully support Leigh's comments. The greens would have us wearing sackcloth and using leaves for personal hygiene.

Instead of of the Leftist Luddites endlessly being negative about nuclear power, why don't we in Australia embrace it?

We could make vast sums of money by becoming leaders in nuclear waste processing (as proposed by Bob Hawke) and developing nuclear fusion. Australia has some of the biggest reserves of uranium in the world, and a huge desert to store the waste in.

Nuclear fusion is not usable currently for power generation - imagine the energy we could generate if we could. Maybe Australia should commit to moving away from coal completely, and ONLY using nuclear power.

We should see this as an opportunity, not a threat. But I suppose as usual the greens and the left will bleat on endlessly with their negativity, and not put anything useful on the table (and I include renewable energy in that equation).
Posted by gw, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 11:38:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions are a major concern to thinking people,However I think "Travel Demand Management" should be the starting block for emissions abatement for all sectors of the community starting from the lone driver to the Traffic Generating Organisations.

Nuclear Power is a no-go zone for me, and I need a lot of convincing to change my thinking! So bring it on...and who the hell is BOB HAWKE when he is anyone anyhow!

What I want to know is, what does it take to get the non-thinking people to think & change bad habits?
Posted by Bea Green, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 12:15:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
May I advice to most reader, that there is a non nuclear, non fossil fuel and crude oil solution to our energy pollution problem, that our Federal Coalition or Labor governments will not tackle, and which they have been informed of for the last 10 years as an alternative and a replacement energy source. Question is WHy? will they not act. Further information can be found on website www.users.bigpond.net.au/dngr
Cy
Posted by Cy, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 12:39:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh, if we don't listen to the greenies in a few generations hence humans will be back to sitting in dark, cold caves growling over raw meat.

If we listen to the non-Greenies in a few generations hence humans will be back to sitting in dark, cold caves growling over raw meat.

As we sit today in that dark cave of ignorance between our ears of raw meat we instead could use our grey matter and invent rain as we won't have enough water in a few generations time to produce any raw meat to eat with the non-existant water while we try and heat both with nuclear power.
Posted by GlenWriter, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 1:48:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Dr. Green would care to consult the web pages of the Uranium Information Centre Ltd., he will find ample data that refutes his thesis. His anti-nuclear rant covers about 2.5 sheets of A4 paper and ranges over such diverse topics as greenhouse gas emissions, availability of uranium, safety concerns in the Japanese industry, nuclear proliferation, the IAEA safeguard system, nuclear smuggling, terrorist targets, radioactive waste disposal and Mr. Bob Hawk.

Then Dr. Green turns his attention to the renewable energies. Hydroelectricity he tells us, with obvious relish produces 19% of the world’s electricity. Wind, solar and biomass get their Guernsey. Energy efficiency, reducing energy consumption strategies are praised. Finally we are referred to the Clean Energy Future Group for more of the same.

I look forward to further papers from Dr. Green provided he can discipline himself to a limit of one or two topics only. For instance could he tell us more about the 50-100,000 tons plutonium predicated by the IPCC. What proportion is, or will be of weapons grade plutonium standard?
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 2:08:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst the dangers of accidents and misuse of reactors are concerns, these are not fatal to the argument for them. Nor is the fact that their contribution to reducing Green House effects are modest. Nuclear power is on the agenda becuase we are running out of fossil fuel, and something has to be done.

What this article did was tell me - remind me - that nuclear energy is itself based on a non-renewable resource, and one that is, according to the author, in scarce supply. The fatal flaw to nuclear power, then, is that it is a terribly short term solution to a long term problem. Since we have another 4 or 5 billion years before the sun burns out, we do need energy for the long term, and playing around with dangerous 200 years solutions is, well, just absurd
Posted by David E James, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 2:18:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The anti-nuclear argument is I beleive based on fear and muddled thinking. Yes nuclear power is dangerous but no more than many other things. Man kind goes forward by applying his discoveries to improve the world. By saying "Oh we cant have nuclear power, mankind will misuse it and is not morally fit to be trusted with it" Jim Green takes the part of Zesus who denies the use of fire to mankind.

There are now 3rd generation reactors that can be ordered "off the shelf". The benefits to Australia would include the ability to cheaply power an electrified rail grid, Pumping of water on a scale to irrigate dry inland areas, the pumping of treated effluent water from our cities to irrigate inland areas and desalination if we need it.

If we have a proper nation (and we should have or what are we doing wasting our time here)then we can further involve plutonium in the fuel cycle thus reducing the amount of that material.

Here's a vision of the future where Australia is so thoroghly greeened
that there is no need to chop down Tasmanias forests for chips and where that "bad old" C02 is taken up by the increase in biomass of the previously marginal areas.
Posted by Jellyback, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 2:31:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those supporters of nuclear power should immediately lobby their local member and demand that a nuclear power station and a nuclear waste dump be located in their suburb. After all the benefits are such we can just wear the risk. OK, who is going to be first to put their hand up?

While we could just dig up our uranium and send it overseas (although I don't support that), the reality is that the economic implications of the distribution of our relatively small population over a very large area means nuclear energy is never going to stack up as a viable power source for us. How many stations would we need across the country and where are they going to be located? Even if a decision was made today to commit to building a nuclear power station in Australia it would be 10 years at least before it came on stream. Any idea on what it would cost to build and how much would the cost of power generated be compared to alternative energy sources?
If the rest of the world were to commit to nuclear power as the answer for their future power needs it would require hundreds, if not thousands, of power stations to be built forcing up the cost of construction and the price of uranium. Just like oil, the quantity of uranium is finite and so within a few years we would be looking at running out of supplies and so would be back to square one.
Given the economics and the risks associated with nuclear energy we might as well start looking now at renewable energy and skip the nuclear option.
No, nuclear power for Australia is just a pipe dream so just get over it.
Posted by rossco, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 10:29:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no "nuclear option", because the world is running out of economically-mined uranium and the secondary supplies of ex-weapons highly enriched uranium (HEU), re-worked mine tailings, inventories and a modicum of MOX are expected to be exhausted in ten years or so.

This is so much a crisis for the nuclear industry that it has anguished over it in the last three annual symposiums of the World Nuclear Association in London. Many nuclear stations will run out of fuel once the 40% of the world's supply from secondary sources declines.

Primary mining supplies provide only 60% of the demand and even this level of supply requires a constant location and opening of new mines as the production in the existing mines reaches its "Hubbert" peak and then declines.

There could be no better illustration of this dilemma than the proposals to expand Olympic Dam mine in South Australia by digging a hole 3km x 3km x 1km to extract copper, gold and uranium. BHP Billiton has initiated a feasibility study, but have already stated that without the copper, the grade of uranium ore at only 0.04% is insufficiently high to warrant a go-ahead without the revenue from the copper.

Uranium is mined for the energy it produces in a subsequent nuclear fuel cycle, but if the diesel and electricity used to excavate such an enormous hole and mill the lean ore exceeds that produced in the fuel cycle what is the point? The Olympic Dam expansion requires desalinated water supply and pipeline, a rail connection and there is a suggestion of an airport. The initial energy input is unlikely to provide a decent energy return, certainly not if world recession lowers the price of copper.

The proponents of the "nuclear option" should state where they imagine the world's uranium supply would come from, especially if Australia retained its uranium for its own fleet.
Posted by John Busby, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 3:32:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All the arguments of the anti-nuclear lobby have been thoroughly refuted before, yet they persist in their luddite thinking.
There is no problem with supplies of uranium. The nuclear industry has NOT anguished over it in the last three annual symposiums of the World Nuclear Association in London. It has been a subject of discussion, as one would expect, but the following has satisfactorily disposed of that particular concern:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/pdf/macdonald.pdf

The anti-nuclear lobby is against any solution to the energy crisis for ideological reasons unrelated to the actual problem. They want to see a collapse of the current economic system so that they can have a chance to implement their failed socialist ideas.
One would have thought that the failed communist experiment of the Soviet Union would have persuaded them that socialism and communism doesn't work. But no, they persist...
They can't seem to get away from their 1970's student activist way of thinking.
For an exposé on who these people really are, have a look at the following article written by Patrick Moore:
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues.cfm?msid=34
Posted by Froggie, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 7:36:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
May I ask in a polite way, "what is wrong with solar power" we use it in the outback, as a power source, why can we not stipulate in building codes that solar panels and hot water systems be fitted to new houses, much like Tasmania stipulates inground water tanks. Solar is a renewable source of energy, has powered cars, and homes, and if a solar panel blows up, we are not in fear of radiation contamination on a wide scale. Solar costs nothing to run or maintain, however can be expensive at the start up stage. Perhaps if the Solar industry was assured a market, the prices could be bought down over time. Jobs would also be created in componentry, assembly, and installation. We have an abundance of sunshine in Australia, why not use it. On the "greenie" side of things it would help to cut our greenhouse emissions, which the federal government has expressed a desire to do. It would also cut household budgets, electricity and hot water. I invite critisism of this idea, but not just for vthe sake of it, if you have a constructive arguement, I would very much like to hear it, as I am unable to see how Solar power would not help to give us an offset to building more and more huge power stations, Regards,Shaun
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 7:06:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shonga you asked in a polite way and for my part I will answer from my perspective I hope in an equally magnanimous spirit.

There is nothing wrong with solar power. It is the ideal power source for a large number of applications. Examples are remote areas, low current draw devices, devices that one has a need to run on sunny long days, satelites.

But to run a national electrified rail grid for instance or water pumping stations other alternatives may be more appropriate. No doubt large banks of solar arrays so deployed could contribute and technically could power such operations but then we run into the another aspect of solar power that tells against it as a universal solution.

The need for power to be stored-most commonly (but not necessarily) in batteries. No need here to go into the energy reqirements and toxic nature of some materials used in their construction but they are thought to be considerable.

Well thats my 2 cents worth for what its worth.

By the way, whatever happened to that 1 km high funnel that was going to generate power through updraught? I thought they were going to build it in Aus.
Posted by Jellyback, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 11:47:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shaun the problem with solar is capital cost and intermittancy. On an overcast day you can realise that in interest terms each kilowatt hour is costing a dollar or so. That contrasts with around 15 cents for coal fired electricity, which of course includes polluting for free. The required cost reductions for solar and night time energy storage may never be achieved. Ditto windpower. For all its problems nuclear keeps plugging away in all weather, day and night with only minor indirect greenhouse emissions.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 8 December 2005 9:46:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jellyback,Taswegian, I was thinking along the lines of supplimentry power, relieving large power plants, and the increasing need to continiously be building them, I thank you both for your vconstructive thoughts. I also had in mind R&D, my thoughts were if the solar industry had a guarenteed market, they may be able to mass produce, lowering prices, and also do some R&D to make the units more effective during rainy days, just a thought, your thoughts are appreciated also, Regards,Shaun
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 8 December 2005 4:05:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SHONGA your on the right track!
We do need more imput $$$ into Wind & Solar power. Taswegian go feel how spectacular the power of a strong breeze is just go to Aurthur River (or woolnorth?)where they have the Wind Turbines... and get blown off your feet.

Implementation may be more dollars than what we may want to spend BUT if every one generated their power and sold back to the grid I cant see why it wouldnt work.

Dont forget We also have Tidal Surge and the faithfull old Water Wheel. You know living in a cave may just be more fun than you think!
Posted by Bea Green, Thursday, 8 December 2005 4:55:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nah, Living in a cave means we get exposed to far too high a dose of radiation from radon.

As for the idea that uranium has too short a future life for energy, I suggest you read this:

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=374

Nuclear is our future.
Posted by Collywobbles, Friday, 9 December 2005 3:34:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All this could be mute if the Fusion Experiment in France works. Big if yes but it is one POTENTIAL option to alleviate future energy woes.

I believe the current state of play is that the fusion is producing more enery than it consumes. Maybe someone more informed can clarify.

As to renewables to get anywhere near what is needed to maintain a sizable proportion of energy production the land use is huge. In fact green groups do not help as they tend to

A - not like putting up wind turbines in the most efficient areas (on coasts) since it spoils the view.
B - not like having dams to generate more hydro power
C - Probably not like digging up all the Silicon and other metals to install huge arrays of solar panels over huge areas.

It is a quandary.
Posted by The Big Fish, Friday, 9 December 2005 12:13:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Call for Reality (part 1)

I think that the availabilty of a "free" energy source such as petroleum has blinded us to the realities of energy. By describing oil energy as "free", I don't wish to discount the heroic efforts of oil industry workers, who deserve a medal, but it must be understood that this resource is a gift like no other.

To illustrate my point, let's take something we all know a lot about - the trusty family car.

* * *

Cars don't work!

1. On average, the creation of a motorcar consumes about 12% of all the oil energy that it will ever burn in it's lifetime.

2. New car arrives. We fill it say, to the tune of 40 litres.

3. Our car converts 10 litres into motion. The rest is turned into heat, noise and fumes. Most of that energy of motion is consumed in the act of moving the mass of the car itself.

4. So the fraction of that 40 litres which is required to convey my unworthy self is approximately enough to fill a coffee cup.

5. Am I worth it?

* * *

Now we face the dawn of the nuclear age with all of the accumulated ignorance that personified the motor vehicle age, and we seem determined to repeat the same mistakes. Too many people will use monetary economics for their yardstick, to see if the nuclear concept works. On paper (money) it's not too bad.

Forget for a minute the disposal of waste and the proliferation of weapons grade material. Just concentrate on the feelgood bits.

Despite it's relative abundance, uranium is not conveniently disposed in neat seams like coal. The extraction and processing of uranium from mine to reactor requires massive inputs of energy, much of which must come from gas, petrol and diesel. The questions must be asked:
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Friday, 9 December 2005 8:37:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Call For Reality (part 2)

1. What grade (richness) of uranium ore returns a clear energy profit (if at all)?

2. How much ore of that quality exists in the world?

3. How many reactors will that ore feed and for how long?

4. Is the nuclear infrastructure just another bonfire upon which much of our irreplaceable "free" oil energy will be burnt?

* * *

If you think the captains of industry have it all figured out, think again. The brewing energy crisis has at it's heart the unforseen shortage of high quality oil. We will not run out of the crap stuff anytime soon, but it won't keep us in the lifestyle to which we are accustomed.

Yet industrialists and politicians alike seem set to repeat the same mistakes, because oils ain't oils and ores ain't ores.

The nuclear "industry" will paint the dream-machine powder blue and boast that it will do 0-60 in 3 seconds flat. It will even come with air-conditioning - so they say. Yet it will never break or even slighly bend the immutable laws of nature.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Friday, 9 December 2005 8:39:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree Chris about that car thing. But for we the people to create an alternative like Mag-lev public transport and rail there still is a need for a power source.

My understanding is that a closed nuclear cycle with reprocessing can provide lots of power over a long period of time for public benefit. I believe that the nuclear power lobby is not part of the "big industry thing" WHICH IS SCARED OF IT as it threatens their strategic strangle hold.

I would like to see Urainium and Thorium mined and processed by public corporations and powerplants the same. I dont think its wrong for the people through their instrument of government to have sovreignty over strategically important parts of the economy ie. power, water, road and rail.
Posted by Jellyback, Friday, 9 December 2005 9:31:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To answer Chris Shaw, yes, you are right, motorcars are not very efficient at converting fuel into motion. Electric motors appear to be better.
Concerning energy input/energy output ratios, the following information is publicly available on the UIC web site.

“Life cycle analysis for Vattenfall's Environmental Product Declaration for its 3090 MWe Forsmark power plant for 2002 has yielded some energy data, which is up to date and certified. It shows energy inputs over 40 years to be 1.35% of the output.
If very low-grade ore of 0.01% U is envisaged - as has been said to make mining uneconomic - the input figure rises to 2.9% of output.”

Therefore it appears to me that regardless of the grade of uranium used, the energy balance is quite a good deal for mankind.
As far as uranium resources are concerned, uranium supplies are more than adequate for the reasonable future, or at least fifty years at the current rate of consumption. The price of uranium is so low that it is not considered economic at present to explore for any more resources. For an explanation, I refer you to the following:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/pdf/macdonald.pdf

Using breeder reactors would extend the availability of nuclear fuel by a factor of at least 60. And we haven’t even mentioned Thorium, which is about three times as abundant as uranium in the Earth’s crust.
As far as proliferation issues are concerned, plutonium from civilian nuclear reactors is not “weapons grade” fissile material. If people want to construct atomic weapons, they can and will, regardless of the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The weapons that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WW2 were made before nuclear power stations existed.
Waste issues are dealt with on the UIC site that I referred to earlier. http://www.uic.com.au/nip09.htm
Posted by Froggie, Friday, 9 December 2005 10:38:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Froggie
Supply of uranium might last 50 years at the current rate of consumption but how long would it last if we had hundreds of new nuclear power stations which would be required to replace oil as it runs out? If nuclear power is the way of the future it makes no sense to factor in the current consumption of uranium.
Posted by rossco, Friday, 9 December 2005 11:12:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rossco, please follow this link:

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=374

It answers very clearly, your erroneous supposition that U fuel will not extend beyond 50 years. You might also try to think 'Breeder'. Coal ash discards more energy, in the uranium in this waste, than was extracted by burning the coal in the first place. So effectviely nearly all coal ash becomes an ore of uranium - waste recycling - once the breeder is adopted. In addition, extraction of uranium from seawater containing 3 parts per billion of uranium, becomes economic with a breeder cycle.

and Chris,

Consider that 1 kilogram of uranium in an LWR (enriched to 3%)produces about 250,000 kWh of electricity, worth about $25,000+. In a breeder, the same kilogram produces about 3 million kWh, worth about $300,000+. And with breeding, all of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of depleted uranium, worth more than 100 trillion dollars in extractable energy, are brought back into the nuclear closed cycle. You also might try to read the above article and others by the same author, and others, on this site.
Posted by Collywobbles, Saturday, 10 December 2005 3:03:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rossco, the references given by Collywobbles, if you read and understand them, will convince you that there is no problem with the supply of nuclear fuel for the forseeable future.
BTW, referring to an earlier post of yours, I would rather live next door to a nuclear power station than a coal fired one.
Posted by Froggie, Saturday, 10 December 2005 11:34:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Collywobbles
It was Froggie that said uranium would last for 50 years at current consumption rates, not me. My point was how long would it last if we had hundreds of new nuclear power stations come on stream.
I am not too worried actually as it ain't never going to happen!
Posted by rossco, Saturday, 10 December 2005 11:39:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frog, Colly et al. Thanks for the valuable links. I would have replied sooner, but having been greedy, the guillotine thing cut me off for my sins.

It is hard to judge if some erudite paper on nuclear energy is tainted by economics, politics or self-interest. My math isn't good enough yet to make a proper distinction. But I press on, trying not to seek the reflection of my own inevitable prejudices.

Perhaps many factors will not be discovered until we actually suck it and see.

On the subject of safety, I dread the thought of decisions being made by "risk mitigating experts", cost-cutters and CEO's looking for fat payouts. Seems to me we need a clean break from "free market" principles.

Cheers
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Saturday, 10 December 2005 9:35:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rossco
I should have perhaps said, to be more accurate, "Current uranium supplies are expected to last 50 years at the current rate of consumption". This does not mean that the world's total uranium resources are expected to last 50 years. This should have been obvious if you had read and understood the references I pointed you to, plus my subsequent comments.
I predict that current anti-nuclear lobbies will be swiftly swept aside if and when energy supplies become a real problem. People are not going to accept energy penury when there is a good and well proven solution available.
Posted by Froggie, Sunday, 11 December 2005 4:44:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The world is running out of energy-economic uranium faster than oil or gas. We shall soon see nuclear stations close for lack of fuel. How so? Primary annual production of 40,000 tonnes from mines provides only 60% of the world's demand for uranium, the other 40% is cobbled together from ex-weapons HEU, re-worked mine tailings, a little mixed oxide (MOX) produced at enormous expense and from inventories.

Three WNA symposiums have signalled the end of the secondary uranium sources in under ten years, so where is the missing 30,000 tonnes coming from to meet the world's demand for 70,000 tonnes?

Not from Canada, where new mines are needed to replace the production from two that have recently closed and two that have passed their "Hubbert" production peaks and will shortly decline. Not from Australia, where even if the price of copper holds up it will still take years to dig an enormous hole in the ground at Olympic Dam before a fraction of the requirement emerges. In desperation to supply their planned reactors the Chinese are seeking permission to prospect and open their own mines in Australia.

To answer previous comments:-

MacDonald's paper compares uranium extraction with other metals, but they are mined for their own sake, not for energy. Once the energy input exceeds that delivered to the network, there is no point to nuclear power and mining low ore grades is non-viable.

Sutherland's EnergyPulse article serves up the same pervading mythology that believes uranium can be extracted from seawater. After 50 years of trying there is still no commercially available breeder and thorium requires a chain of three differing and as yet still experimental reactors.

Nuclear power provides 6% of the world's primary energy, but only 2½% of it as usable electrical energy. The current number of stations would have to be built every year to match the world's annual increase in energy demand. The proponents of nuclear power need to come to terms with reality.

There is no nuclear nirvana!

See http://www.stormsmith.nl and http://www.after-oil.co.uk/nuclear.htm
Posted by John Busby, Monday, 12 December 2005 9:24:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Busby
Frankly, I don’t understand your reference to MacDonalds paper.
As I posted it before, please read the following (I have underlined the relevant statement which demolishes your argument about energy inputs completely):
“Life cycle analysis for Vattenfall's Environmental Product Declaration for its 3090 MWe Forsmark power plant for 2002 has yielded some energy data, which is up to date and certified. It shows energy inputs over 40 years to be 1.35% of the output.
If very low-grade ore of 0.01% U is envisaged - as has been said to make mining uneconomic - the input figure rises to 2.9% of output.”
According to Wikipedia, using life cycle analysis, it takes 4-5 months of energy production from the nuclear plant to fully pay back the initial energy investment. The EROEI is very positive.
I have looked again at Sutherland’s article; even if we discount thorium, we still have resources to last 100,000 years, using breeder reactors, which, contrary to your posting, are proven technologies.
I presume from your postings that you are disconnected from the grid, and run your life only on energy you generate yourself. Also you should not use a motorcar, unless you are running it on bio-fuels that you grow yourself (but lets not forget about the embedded energy in the vehicle) and I’m even wondering whether you should use a computer, to be consistent with your beliefs. As for flying anywhere- well!!
If you are still using the public energy sources now, perhaps you should consider disconnecting and generating all your own energy. The Alchemist (elsewhere in this forum) has some good ideas! Have a look at his solution.
BTW your figures about nuclear power current role in the world are wrong, the correct figures are:
The 445 large commercial reactors contribute about 8% of the world's total energy requirements, and about 17% of its electricity.
Posted by Froggie, Monday, 12 December 2005 1:24:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Froggie

We will all soon have to adjust to an energy-lean lifestyle something like the one you describe. If we waste precious capital on inappropriate projects like nuclear power we will bring the onset of depletion a little nearer and we will not have the money for the survival technology we will soon all need.

Your figure of 8% for the contribution of nuclear power to the world’s energy is overstated.

From the BP Statistical Review, in 2004 nuclear power provided primary (i.e., thermal) energy equivalent to 634.4 million tonnes of oil from a world total of 10224.4 mtoe, which is 6.1%. Total world electrical generation in 2004 was 17452 TWh, so that 17% of it from nuclear is 2967 TWh, which is equivalent to 2967/12 = 247.2 mtoe, which over 10224.4 is 2.4%.

According to BP the increase in primary energy consumption over 2003 was 10224.4/9800.8, which works out at 4.3%. To provide this annual increment in the world’s primary energy consumption by nuclear power, we would have to build 580 nuclear power stations and mine an extra 116,000 tonnes of uranium every successive year.

Nuclear power cannot replace declining reserves of fossil fuel to any worthwhile extent, so we should be considering the options for our children’s and grandchildren’s lifestyle without it
Posted by John Busby, Monday, 12 December 2005 6:52:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Author’s reponse to some of the comments.
1. Are the clean, green alternatives pipe-dreams? Studies such as the Australia Institute briefing paper and the Clean Energy Future Report, both referenced in my article, limit themselves to consideration of immediately available technologies. For references to a number of these ‘deep cuts’ studies, see Appendix 1 in the ‘Nuclear Power: No Solution To Climate Change’ report
at <www.melbourne.foe.org.au/documents.htm>.
2. Modest growth of nuclear power in China seems likely, but a large, rapid growth is unlikely.
3. For a short critique of some of the Uranium Information Centre’s misinformation, contact me at <jim.green@foe.org.au>.
4. Someone asks what percentage of plutonium produced in power reactors can be used in weapons. The answer is all or almost all of it, though it may be more difficult and dangerous to use this ‘reactor-grade’ plutonium than weapon grade plutonium, and there may be further limitations such as decreased yield. See Appendix 1 in the ‘Nuclear Power: No Solution To Climate Change’ report.
5. On so-called 3rd and 4th generation reactors, well worth reading recent report at:
<www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/nuclearreactorhazards>
6. The comments on solar power do not mention the most immediate large-scale option for the use of solar energy, namely heating water. Water heating typically accounts for one quarter to one third of energy consumption and greenhouse emissions from the residential sector. Solar water heating is quite cheap and simple and efficient.
7. And just to finish, I have done some work advising people on methods to reduce their household energy consumption and to improve comfort and save money. The best house I’ve seen had a quarterly electricity bill of just $7! Remarkably simple - solar water heating and solar electricity, efficient space heating and cooling, and various simple strategies such as insulation and the rest. Capital costs of these investments recovered fairly quickly with huge long-term savings.
Posted by Jim Green, Monday, 12 December 2005 11:48:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please do not destroy Australia with these ghastly useless wind turbines. They are industrial machines, not natural habitat.

We have them over here in Europe and they are now becoming a global menace. There will be extirpation of eagles. 7,500 birds were killed, heads decapitated, wings sliced off and that was only in one year at one wind farm which had over 350 wind turbines in what was once a remote, beautiful area. The landscape has been desecrated. Unfortunately and reluctantly, nuclear is the only way at present, that is, until we can look at much better forms of renewable energy. Windfarms are not the way to go! They produce a trickle of electricity.

Save your lovely country from the proposed proliferation of wind farms. It is big business for the energy companies, often with grants subsidised by blissfully unaware tax payers.

Do you think wind farms have become a global menace? They are whipping up a gale of fury in Europe.
Posted by savethebirds, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 6:29:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beware of any advert enticing you with the 'green dream' marketing hype. Lots of 'save the planet' Not for profit organisations have jumped onto the bandwagon peddling anything green whilst making vast sums of money. Meanwhile they are no longer protecting landscape or bird habitat.
It is rife over here in Europe and the money men march on relentlessly.

One charitable organisation in the UK, whose remit by members is to preserve bird habitat has received a six figured sum of money via an energy company because people switched from their main supplier to renewable energy. Once this initial sum is paid over for every switch to renewables, a percentage of the bill is then paid each year to the charitable or not for profit organisation. There is a huge conflict of interest. Why? Because such organisations are purporting to save our countryside and yet they are being paid by the very companies relentlessly marching on without a care for the environment or landscape.

With such conflict of interest and 'sweetening up' of pressure groups this has resulted in 'free roaming energy companies' choosing where they want to lay the foundations for their industrial machines, with little or no objections from the bodies meant to protect habitat and landscape.

Please beware a lot of money is being made. All is not what it seems.
Posted by savethebirds, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 6:57:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Global warming is a natural process well deployed by well paid to spread threats and baby-talks of human-made affect. Rejecting a nuke power can factually propose nothing.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:24:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is no surprise to me that Dr. Green is critical of material posted on the Uranium Information Centre website. I would urge him, in the interest of public debate, to make his observations concerning the UIC public. That way the UIC would have a “right of reply.
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 10:43:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti-Green, I second that. Let Doctor Green make public his criticisms of the UIC.
John Busby, don't you see the irony in your position? We'd better start building some more new nuclear power stations pretty quickly if your figures are correct. And make them breeder reactors...You still haven't answered my query about your own energy consumption.
Are you connected to the grid or not? If you are, you should not be, since most of the electricity you are consuming is produced by fossil fuels or nuclear, and you are against them, by your own admission.
Anyway, the future will tell. There are many nuclear power station projects in the pipeline- 23 being built, 39 on order or planned and 107 proposed.
Posted by Froggie, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 11:58:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Froggie
Where are the nuclear power stations you mention - new, under construction or proposed.
Give us details so we can check out the costs of construction and operation.
Posted by rossco, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 12:16:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rossco please go to the following link:
http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm
Posted by Froggie, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 12:26:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re: request for critique of Uranium Information Centre, the industry-funded propaganda outfit, I can't post the entire critique because of the 350 word limit for these postings. Here are a few random snippets.

The UIC claims that “No nuclear materials such as uranium from the civil nuclear fuel cycle have ever been diverted to make weapons.” (<www.uic.com.au/introduction.htm>). Rubbish. Civil nuclear programs (all involving imported technology, facilities and materials to a greater or lesser degree) laid the foundation for the nuclear arsenals in Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa and possibly North Korea. Civil programs have been used as cover for nuclear weapons research and/or production in over 20 countries.

Iraq’s ‘shop til you drop’ nuclear program was another spectacular failure of the nuclear industry and its ‘safeguards’ system. Contrary to claims from the UIC and other such bodies, the Iraqi weapons program involved safeguarded facilities as well as separate, clandestine facilities.

Just in the past year South Korea has been forced to reveal that many illicit weapons-related research projects had been carried out despite its status as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. No-one can be sure whether Australian-obligated nuclear materials were used for these illicit projects.

The UIC states: “In fact the worldwide application of those safeguards and the substantial world trade in uranium for nuclear electricity make the proliferation of nuclear weapons much less likely. (<www.uic.com.au/nip05.htm>). Huh? Spreading the facilities and materials required to produce nuclear weapons makes proliferation much less likely? Have we missed something?!
Posted by Jim Green, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 1:19:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Simplistic view from a point of cost-economics analysis is a path to nothing:

<Where are the nuclear power stations you mention - new, under construction or proposed.
Give us details so we can check out the costs of construction and operation.

Posted by rossco, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 12:16:04 PM>
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 14 December 2005 6:17:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In reply to Dr. Green: Firstly, It is not for me to defend the UIC. Secondly, the nexus between civil and military uses of atomic energy is complex. The Manhattan project and the development of atomic bombs were NOT done under the guise of a civilian program. It is not clear if plutonium derived from a civil reactor fuelled say every two years could produce suitable weapon grade plutonium. Military or “research reactor” fuelled at shorter intervals would make a better product.

10kg pf Plutonium is required and this should be near pure Pu-239. As fuel is exposed to longer and longer periods of neutron irradiation other radio nuclides build up namely, Pu-240; Pu-241; Pu-238 (derived from U-235) and Am-241 (from Pu-241 decay). This causes great problems for the bomb maker. Pu-240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission which may lead to premature detonation and low (a relative term) yield. Heat of decay from Pu-241 and Pu-238 means an efficient cooling system must be built into the device. Am-241 means that protection from gamma radiation is required.

The anti nuclear lobby loves to quote the 1962 bomb, because the Pu source was from a UK power reactor*. Although the exact isotopic composition or yield of this weapon is not in the public domain. It is likely to have been made from about 90% or more of pure Pu-239.

The best way to deal with excess military Pu is: Vitrification or SynRoc and then storage; use as MOX fuel; or use in a fast neutron reactor.

Finally, there are many, many industrial processes that have both civil and military uses. The atomic bomb casing may be made from steel. In any case the FOE and its sister organizations have no clout in Iran, North Korea, etc, etc.

* UIC Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 18
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 15 December 2005 9:34:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Froggie, anti-green, savethebirds, et al

There are two main reasons for a recourse to nuclear power, security of supply as oil and gas supplies deplete and to provide a low carbon source of energy. As economically-extractable uranium is running out faster than oil and gas and the mining and milling of the lower uranium ore grades leads to excessive emissions of carbon dioxide from the fossil fuels used, neither criteria are met. As the lower higher grades in Canada deplete, the use of ever lower grades from elsewhere leads to a negative energy gain in the overall fuel cycle. This is not a 'green' or an anti-nuclear view – it is just pragmatism. Nuclear power will soon be non-viable, if it not so already.

There is a well-remunerated pro-nuclear lobby, which has seized on gas depletion and worries about climate change. It is running a very successful PR campaign to persuade what they believe to be a gullible public. The lobby sees a rival for the government subsidies made available for renewable energy in wind power and has attacked it remorselessly, even though it has never been claimed that wind can provide more than a small proportion of the current electricity demand.

The industry also needs governments to fund the development of the missing fast breeders. Ten nations sponsored "A technology roadmap for Generation IV nuclear energy systems" http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_IV_roadmap.pdf but the authors could not agree which of the 6 fast breeder projects (proposed to be ready by 2025) should go ahead. So MIT in "The future of nuclear power" http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ opted for a once-through system based on low-grade ores from phosphates. They omitted to locate where the deposits likely to yield 17 million tonnes of uranium for their programme might be found. The industry is in disarray.

When in the next ten years, as the secondary uranium sources run out and some of the present nuclear reactors close for lack of fuel, the matter will be settled.
Posted by John Busby, Friday, 16 December 2005 3:32:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi John Busby, could you please send me your email address (jimgreen3@ozemail.com.au).

Further to my earlier post re UIC, here are a few more points. The UIC states: “All documentation relating to [Australian-obligated nuclear material] is carefully monitored and any apparent discrepancies are taken up with the country concerned. There have been no unreconciled differences in accounting for AONM.” (<www.uic.com.au/nip05.htm>) But there have been incidents of large-scale ‘Material Unaccounted For’ in Australia’s nuclear customer countries such as Japan.

The UIC states: “Weapons-grade plutonium is not produced in commercial power reactors but in a "production" reactor operated with frequent fuel changes to produce low-burnup material with a high proportion of Pu-239.” (<www.uic.com.au/nip05.htm>) But no-one disputes that sub-weapon grade plutonium has been used in successful nuclear tests in the USA and at Emu Field in South Australia. Nor is there any dispute that ‘civil’ reactors can irradiate fuel for a shorter-than-normal time to produce high-grade plutonium. Nor is it in dispute that India and Israel have used civil ‘research’ reactors to produce plutonium for their weapons.

The UIC states that the Iraqis “were clearly in violation of their NPT and safeguards obligations, and the IAEA Board of Governors ruled to that effect.” But the IAEA gave Iraq the tick of approval ever year despite its massive weapons program which was only uncovered and destroyed after the 1991 war.

The UIC claims that “nuclear power is the only energy-producing industry which takes full responsibility for all its wastes and fully costs this into the product.” (<www.world-nuclear.org/education/ne/ne5.htm#5.2>). Oh really! That will be news to WMC, which has already produced a tailings stockpile of 60 million tonnes, not to mention the 5,000,000,000,000 (trillion) litre leak from the tailings dam (a.k.a. tailings ‘retention’ system) in the 1990s. And to the privatised nuclear utility British Energy which has received bail-outs of many hundreds of millions of dollars to address waste, decommissioning and other issues. And to British Nuclear Fuels, whose radioactive discharges pollute the Irish Sea, the North Sea, the Norwegian coast and the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. And to dozens of other nuclear organisations.
Posted by Jim Green, Friday, 16 December 2005 10:37:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The future role for nuclear power generation seems to be secure. In time I am certain Australia will build its very own nuclear power plant. Meanwhile many of us look forward with pleasure to the full operation of the soon to be commissioned replacement OPAL reactor.

None of the arguments advanced so far by those opposed to the nuclear development will stop the world wide advance of nuclear energy.

The alleged shortage of uranium is denied by UIC briefing paper No 75. Previous comments have referred to the thorium cycle, fuel reprocessing and fast breeder reactors. The analysis of the earth’s uranium resources is a question for resource economics, geologists and other experts.

It is difficult for non specialists to comment on energy pay back calculations and greenhouse gas emissions etc. Sufficient to say that UIC paper 100 is favourable. On 1st December this year the World nuclear Association released a paper on the low cost of nuclear generated electricity.

I doubt if the alleged relationship between civil and military nuclear activities carries much weight. By all accounts it is very difficult to fabricate and deliver a weapon, even if the “evil-doers” have their 10kg of Pu-239.

The alleged unsolvable problems with nuclear waste, appears to be documented only in the literature of the anti-nuclear groups. The reality is that industry has successfully managed their waste over last half century.

In the final analysis the decision to build power plants is a question for both commercial considerations and governmental regulations. The influence of advocacy groups in decision making is limited.
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 19 December 2005 11:27:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
anti-green quotes UIC paper 75, but nothing could undermine the case for nuclear power more!

It gives the concentration of uranium in seawater as 0.003 parts per million, so with an optimistic yield of say 50% it would require the processing of 1,000,000 x 2/0.003 = 667 million cubic metres of seawater to obtain 1 tonne of uranium with huge pumping energy.

UIC75 gives the average of uranium concentration in the earth's crust as 2.8 ppm (0.00028 %), so with a ratio to overburden to ore of 3:1 and a yield of 10% it would take the mining and milling of 1,000,000 x 10 x 3/2.8 = 10.7 million tonnes of rock to get 1 tonne of uranium. At the mine and mill the principle fuel is diesel, so as fossil fuels get scarcer the level of extraction energy rules.

UIC75 argues that a rise in the price of uranium could be readily carried in the price of electricity, but the killer factor is the enormous increase in the energy needed to extract the uranium from low concentration resources. If the input energy in the overall nuclear fuel cycle exceeds the electrical energy obtained therefrom, the entire operation is pointless. Only the limited high grade reserves in Canada give an adequate energy gain, but to maintain its current production requires continuous prospecting and opening of new mines, the finding of which cannot be guaranteed.

UIC75 mentions military warheads, but the supply of ex-weapons HEU is running out. It admits that thorium is not in commercial use, nor is there a commercially available fast breeder reactor.

anti-green mentions the recent WNA paper on "The new economics of nuclear power". It needs new economics because the old ones have failed. There is no margin to pay for waste treatment. In the USA spent fuel remains on site at 72 of the 100+ power stations which has to be kept stirred and cooled in ponds to avoid a melt down.

anti-green will need better than UIC75 to convince me that nuclear power is viable.
Posted by John Busby, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 4:00:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Busby: You are correct there is no requirement to convince you of the case for nuclear power. The decision will be made in the Board Rooms of Power Companies, the share value as determined by the money market, and government regulators. I myself do not move in those circles.

My best wishes for Christmas, the New Year and a prosperous nuclear future to all.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 11:51:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
UIC paper number 57 adequately disposes of the argument about energy ratios, often put forward by anti-nuclear greens as an argument against nuclear power.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm

As far as fossil fuel inputs are concerned, all forms of energy production (hydro, wind, solar, coal, petrol, etc) require inputs of energy (including fossil fuel energy) before a return can be envisaged. The EROEI of nuclear is extremely positive and can be compared with that of hydro-power.
It is therefore nonsense to suggest that nuclear can be disqualified on these grounds. As far as diesel fuel requirements are concerned, who says that the vehicles MUST be powered by diesel fuel powered engines in the future?

As anti-green says, it is the market that will decide which forms of energy predominate in the future. There may be a role for all forms of energy production, where they are appropriate. In my opinion nuclear will have a much greater role than at present, for many good reasons.
The fact is that John Busby and his like can never be convinced, because they are psychologically drawn to a “doom and gloom” mentality. They also have a hidden political and social agenda. They are like a hydra, in that each time one head of their argument is totally demolished, they move on to something else to worry about. Yes, we could all worry endlessly about everything that happens in the world and everything that COULD happen. The Earth COULD be hit by a planet destroying asteroid tomorrow, but since there is nothing anyone can currently do about it, there is really no point in worrying about it. Or the planet could be destroyed by the VOGONS to build an interstellar by-pass. Myself, I aim to enjoy Christmas and the New Year, satisfied that one day, all this left-green anti-nuclear rubbish will be consigned to the dustbin of history. A Merry Christmas, and a Happy Nuclear New Year to you all.
Posted by Froggie, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 12:45:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So much fuss of a GLOBAL WARMING and so short info of CHANGING MAGNET POLES…
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 20 December 2005 2:08:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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