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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.