Nuclear also has the added benefit of being a very capable terrorist target. Not only does a plane crash release radioactive material, but limits your response as you have no power to respond with. With all the technology around in the 21st century it would make a lot more sense to invest in renewable energy sources, solar, wind, hydro are just a few that the government should have commissioned R&D into years ago, to reduce demand for oil, and provide clean green energy. Conservative governments really are conservative, what a surprise.

As usual I have gone off half cocked, I forgot to mention that the renewable energy does not have the added burden of waste disposal, no wonder Howard wants nuclear, he doesn't even know what his own C.S.I.R.O. research can tell him, or could it be of benefit to some of his wealthy mates?

What a joke. Dude quotes a 1998 study that found nuclear power to be uncompetitive with coal and oil/gas but didn't bother to point out that prices have more than doubled since then. To fail to mention this is not just sloppy, it is seriously biased and sleazy propaganda masquerading as intelligent analysis.

And of course nuclear energy would be uneconomic at market interest rates of 10% per annum. The only problem with that argument is that market interest rates are only 6.5% in Australia and much lower in the USA and Japan. And that makes a major difference to the economics of large, long term investments.

So where does that leave us? The price comparisons in the quoted material are less than half of the current actual price while the interest rates are almost double the current actual. It is Bull$hit to the power of 3. But standard fare for the bimboscenti.

Mark Diesendorf has again given a clear explanation of the facts on the nuclear industry. He uses language that an ordinary person can understand. I've noticed how the proponents of the nuclear industry like to dazzle us with scientific language, and subtly teach the ordibary person that "you can't really understand these matters" (? you poor dill).
What is nearly as bad, the various academic experts who are not in favour of the nuclear industry seem sometimes to feel obliged to respond in like high-powered language.
Anyway, thanks Mark Diesendorf, escpecially on the investment advice. I'd been thinking that people shouldn't invest in nuclear, on ethical grounds. Now I'll be telling them that it's a bad financial investment.
Christina www.antinuclearaustralia.com

Here's an email I sent to Qld politicians, after being incensed by a news item on John Howard's nuclear ambitions:-

"Goodmorning,

Here's a reality check.

As Bill Clinton said on the 28th March 2006 that the World is at Peak Oil production now, and the price of petrol will spiral, I'd say the politicians in place now will have a hard enough time just holding on to power - let alone introducing nuclear power to the electorate.

Here's a "Letter to the Editor" I've just sent to over 300 local papers all over Australia (128 words, and easy to read - at least, according Microsoft):-

'Nuclear power’s a loss without huge tax payer grants, so why’s John Howard so keen? Maybe his friends are licking their lips at all that money from you and me. Who cares about more kids with cancer when you can make a buck? Want more info on that? Put "Jean-Francois Viel"+"La Hague" into your computer search engine. And here’s a quote from medical researcher Prof Jean-Francois Viel “I know better than most how powerful the nuclear lobby is. I have experienced attacks and intimidations at the expense of my professional and family life.” And as for cutting green house gases, nuclear’s a pricey dud compared to wind, solar and biomass. But what’s the key difference? Why of course, it’s profits (or rather our money), for the fat cats.'

. . . Interestingly, I got this reply from Peter Slipper (a Queensland Federal MP):-

"Kim There is a fundamental error in your email. The PM is not "so keen" on nuclear as you suggest. He just wants to have a full scientific evaluation of the issue. What's wrong with that? Peter"

Puhleeeeeez . . . does Peter Slipper think we're all that naive? I gave up "Play School" when I lost the plaits. So I replied:-

Thanks for getting back to me Peter. Much appreciated.

A full scientific evaluation of nuclear power has already been carried out in the UK (it reported just recently). Here it is:-

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=344

And this article in "The Australian Financial Review" says it all:-

http://afr.com/articles/2005/06/23/1119321845502.html

C'mon Peter, I'm not naive, and neither are you. Bottom line is getting the Australian public to accept nuclear power is about as palatable as getting them to eat dog meat. And trying to push something like that through, while dealing with the very nasty consequences Peak Oil (likely to make any central Government as popular as a skunk at a dinner party), is called "Hubris." All the best, Kim

The article strangely omits the effects of carbon taxes or cap-and-trade on the relative economics of nuclear energy. Peversely the nuclear industry is somewhat handicapped in minimising indirect CO2 generation. For example if the proposed Olympic Dam 'super pit' was supported by a nuclear power plant it could get desalinated water and electricity for machinery within the loop so to speak. Waste from reactors could be buried nearby. Some other criticisms cut two ways; for example a technology that might help the penetration of renewables uses liquid sodium in large batteries, surely another NIMBY target. Given the urgency of the clean energy problem it needs to be pointed out nuclear plants can be built anywhere with large output. That's simply not true of geothermal for example. As the years go by it will become clearer that the squeaky clean alternatives don't stack up. We're kidding ourselves if we think otherwise, but wait and see.

The economics and energy accounting are specialist topics, so specialist that an interested lay person is reduced to quoting this or that expert. In referring us to the CSIRO sustainability network I was interested to find a paper “Nuclear power-can we afford to ignore it.” This document in turn refers us to http://world-nuclear.org for different opinions. It should also be noted that the Royal Academy of Engineering-UK estimates 2.3pence per kWh for nuclear generation. About same as coal or gas fired plants. For wind power with stand by generation 5.4p to 7.2p per kWh depend on farm being on or off shore.

I am sure nobody could possible be so crass as to substitute the word “wind” for nuclear in the sentence. “The nuclear industry has disseminated widely the false notion that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gas emissions.”

Really! what about the energy and emissions attendant on mining, milling, smelting the metals required to build a turbine, transport materials etc? What of the large amount of concrete required to mount a large turbine? Let say the life of a turbine is 20 years, the life of a nuclear plant at least 40years.

The empirical evidence is that some 32 countries have found nuclear energy economic and 56 countries operate research reactors. Only 8 or 9 counties have nuclear weapons or potential to fabricate nuclear weapons. According to papers on UIC site, Israel, Iran and N. Korea do not operate power reactors. The NPT argument does not hold water.

First of all, if you know anything about how nuclear reactors are designed you know they are far safer facing terrorist attacks than coal fired stations are. Despite warning of the increased danger of fast breeders, the author neglects to mention that ordinary reactors aren't even remotely dangerous in the first place. Only public ignorance gives the impression that they are.

"A truly ethical and clean investment portfolio in energy", in the author's terms, would send us back to the stone age. No matter how safe or clean it may be, renewable energy will never be able to provide the base load currently generated by coal. Consider, two mice on a wheel connected to a generator are cleaner than wind power. But who cares, when neither can provide our energy requirements?

The author says "Bioenergy is already making valuable contributions to energy supply in Finland and Austria." Can we have percentages of total energy rather than "valuable"? I'm betting less than 1%.

Every step of obtaining uranium for nuclear fuel rods may produce C02, but there are few, if any, products available today that don't.

"But the real choice is between clean power - comprising a mix of efficient energy use, natural gas and renewable sources of energy - and dirty power - comprising coal and nuclear power."

No, the choice is between coal or nuclear, with your sideshow 'renewable' energy providing less than 10%, or no power at all.

Some of you are living in a fool's paradise. Dean, in order to make a nuclear power station safe from terrorist attact, who is going to pay the bill? The big corporations? Fat chance! It just doesn't mean building super expensive bomb proof compounds and bullet proof turbines, it means a labour force of top security 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Any fool can breach security in Australia. The Howard Govt. anti-terrorist task forces are a joke. So many pranksters have proof that penetrating top secret intelligence coumpounds, like Pine Gap, Lucas Heights and Woomera is simple.

If a bunch of Quakers can break into Pine Gap to take some snap shots, of secret information without the US or Australian military even noticing was not difficult. Good thing they were AGAINST terrorism and not terrorists themselves. It is going to cost mega-bucks to keep the compound secure! Australia is a junior in this field. Want safe nuclear power so bad mate? You ready to pay the bill?

The article was well written, credible and researched. At long last, we start to see the full picture. We will run out of high grade uranium with increased use, soon! Low grade uranium is more insecure and produces more CO2 gasses and other toxins. The industry gets dirtier, more expensive and more dangerous as time goes on.

Lets bring the farmers into the mix as stakeholders. Offer them incentives to invest in windmill farms. They farm power to sell into the power grid. Australia's CSIRO is developing better efficient solar energy and they are world leaders breaking ground. Farm this too as efficiency = feasibility. The WA Govt. has tidal power. A wider mix of sustainable and cleaner energy is better. Even gas power stations are cleaner than coal for a temporary transitional period. Even if they are CO2 producers, they are cleaner than coal. The transition must happen. Wait for the Candians to develop fusion power: they are gaining ground on this cleaner and safer power, before we talk of nuclear energy for Australia.

Dean is correct nuclear power reactors are inherently safe. They have many built in safety factors. In fact there are layer upon layer of security. Several papers describing safeguards, especially related to the USA are to be found on the Nuclear Energy Institute web site. http://www.nei.org

If your question is about aircraft crashing on to plants you might download this paper dated December 2002.
http://www.nei.org/documents/eprinuclearplantstructuralstudy200212.

A short paper by Chaplin DM et al in Science [Science 2002; 297:1997-9] considers safety at nuclear plants and their fuel from point of view of a terrorist attack.
http://www.uic.com.au/terrorism.pdf

Finally for a good general overview of safety at nuclear plants try Uranium information Centre Briefing paper 14.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm

Please someone correct me if I remember wrongly but I read somewhere that France has much cheaper electricity than Denmark (or was that Holland). France predominantlyt uses Nuclear and Denmark Wind? If true that is a real world example of the economics? Any one know more?

ALso does some one have an idea of the Footprint a Nuclear plant has versus solar or wind and the consequent environmental impact? They are all part of the debate that is going to occur.

Thanks

The claim that nuclear power produces significant quantities of CO2 comes solely from the non-peer reviewed article by van Leeuwen and Smith. This has been comprehensively debunked at http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power. I'll just post the highlights of the extremes they went to to reach this conclusion:

1) Assumed theoretical relationships between the cost in dollars and energy costs of building a nuclear plant. Measured energy costs for modern plants are 100 times lower than SvL&S's figures

2) Assumed diffusion enrichment was used exclusively. This is an old technology; modern centrifuge plants use a fiftieth of this energy.

3) Assumed energy of mining and milling low grade ores was so large that, if true, would mean one mine in Namibia using more energy than the entire country and making a multi-billion dollar loss each year.

Anti-green only refers to the Nuclear Energy Institute. They are the network to promote all nuclear power stations world wide. They are not from independent science institutes.

"NEI’s objective is to ensure the formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies in the United States and around the world."

Even the science journal that anti-green refers to was sponsored by the NEI. OK, lets read the junk mail anyway.

According to the "science journal" funded by the NEI there was a study of an unmanned light aircraft for science, not a domestic jumbo full of fuel. The test crash was into a 3.6 metre thich wall. The light aircraft penetrated 5cm.

According to the NEI, The first layer of the model nuclear power station has a 1 metre thick shield building wall.

The 9/11 expample proves that the jumbo full of fuel would crash through 1 metre of concrete at high speed, from the WTC example, and the Pentagon example. The Pentagon had reinforced thick walls and layers of them, for security. They crumbled.

Within the walls of powerstations, the reactors were: 4cm thick cylanders within this. The NEI study showed that even a light aircraft penetrated 5-6cm. So a jumbo full of exploding fuel would easily destroy this too. The reactor vessel is 10-20 cm thick. That might not be broken, but it would be seriously damaged due to melting from the exploding fuel, causing a leak. Leeking radiactivity would add to the explosion causing a chain reaction.

The reference is nothing more than propaganda, not science.

The general public know too well how lethal a domestic jumbo can destroy large blocks of concrete, melt steal instantly, and cause further explosions.

We all saw it at least 500 times from 9 /11. The promotional material will not convice us after what we have seen ourselves. We know that a terrorist disaster is possible, that a jumbo full of fuel will destroy all "Sahra Lee" shields, layer upon layer, as easy as pastry. The NEI, and their boy: anti-green, will of course, deny this.

John G. de Armond deals capably with the hardness of the shells at http://yarchive.net/nuke/reactor_safeguards.html , reminding us how an actual missile-designed-as-such was tried against the Superphenix containment dome. Using any kind of aircraft is like splitting a firelog with a watermelon; a bigger one doesn't help.

Per Peterson reviews nuclear plants' and wind turbines' concrete requirements here:

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKEZ-5S3Q6M?OpenDocument

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: fire without flue gas:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html

Your article further exemplifies the need for an adequate unbiased study into the pro's and cons of nuclear energy. Your article is riddled with ulterior motives. You seem to have an answer to every nuclear question posed before a full analysis of the facts. Yes, nuclear power can be dangerous and must be met with caution as the potential to develop nuclear arms is apparent. But your economic analysis is extremely misleading. France, the largest developer of nuclear power currently sells nuclear power to the public at 3 cents/KWhr which is among the cheapest in Europe. There is definate advantages of nuclear power, and to say wind power has the capacity to replace current oil/coal power stations is obsurd. For this to occur we must reduce our energy consumption, and i havnt heard anyone yet put foward this idea. Not sure how you derive natural gas as being clean compared to coal and oil aswell. Still has large CO2 emmisions.

I thank saintfletcher for his observations and interest. He correctly points out that my references were from nuclear industry web sites. This raises in my mind a number of important questions?
• Is it not commendable that the industry performs simulations and computer models of accidents and publishes the findings in reputable scientific journals?
• I agree no destructive test covers every possible situation. Perhaps further suitable tests could be nominated by the industry critics?
• I wonder if there are anti-nuclear activists who would like to test every one of the world’s several hundred power and research reactors to destruction. Can this be performed by an administrative instrument? For instance a general closure (chapter 7) order from the United Nations Security Council?
• Clearly all members of the public including myself must have a deep knowledge of the power of a crashing Jumbo jet. Could the mechanically literate general public inform me, if the blow from a jumbo or similar missile on to a circular structure requires the flight path to be normal to the surface for maximum impact?
• Is it reasonable to assume that the writings on anti-nuclear web sites are objective and with out any bias what soever? Is it true that Green advocacy groups never stoop to propaganda?

The author claims "This means that to obtain 1kg of yellowcake, at least 10 tonnes of ore will have to be mined and milled, using fossil fuels and emitting substantial quantities of CO2. These emissions are comparable with those from a combined cycle gas-fired power station." The claim that CO2 emissions due to producing yellow cake are significant is nonsense. In 2005 the Rossing uranium mine, for example, processed 12,027,000 tonnes of ore, produced 3,711 tonnes of U3O8 and this resulted in the production of 161,000 tonnes of CO2 (from diesel and electricity consumption). The U3O8 produced was sufficient to keep nearly thirty 500 MW nuclear power stations running (none of which produce CO2). By contrast, a single 500 MW gas-fired power station produces about 0.5 tonne CO2/MWh, or over 2,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum. Gas and coal fired power sations produce about 30 to 50 times more CO2 per MWh (full life cycle) than nuclear power stations. For those who think CO2 emissions are already too high, the solution is more nuclear power.

I understand that C02 is carbondioxide. Yet greenhouse gases that cause global warming include more than just C02. I understand that even refridgeration needs to include better technology to reduce hydrofluorocabons. (did I spell that right, I'm no scientist)

Increased technology, as someone mentioned before, does not just include better ways to generate energy, but also more efficient ways that we use energy. For example, in NSW our trains use DC electricity for heavy inefficient rolling stock. If we used AC electricity like in QLD and WA, we would save up to 30% power in running our train network.

There are more efficient ways in lighting, heating, cooling, all appliances, and even in industry. This is ongoing, but should be more encouraged while this country works out this power thing. Westfield shopping centre car parks could have their rooftops covered by solar panel shades to help power their airconditioners. The cars won't get hot in the sun and the shade from the solar panels will mean happy customers. Solar panels on rooftops either boost power for the appliances or credit back to the power grid. This includes schools in the western suburbs that want to be airconditioned. It all adds up. We need lots of ideas, as little as they seem.

OK, so gas is just as bad as coal. Wind can't keep up with the demand. I hear you. I think before the majority of residents agree on a local level, there is going to be a long debate ahead. Opinion polls seem fine now for nuclear lobbyists. But once people know where the power station sites are planned, you will be waiting a long time to convince Australians to go nuclear. The opinion polls will swing back to the reserved position. No matter how safe you say they are, Australian people will never want one in their own back yard. There is always the question: what if?

We also need to encourage all alternative energies, as little and as trivial as this seems to some, it all adds up when you do your maths.

Until recently electricity generation in the UK was a state enterprise, so that the real costings were hidden in government statistics. When the nuclear sector was partially privatised as British Energy, it foundered and failed to pay its annual contribution to the decommissioning and waste treatment fund.

To keep it going the government brokered a financial package and passed the "clean-up" to a Nuclear Decommissioning Authority which will pick up the tab. The £70 billion is just for starters as it only includes the shutdown Magnox stations, research reactors like Winfrith and Dounreay and the waste at Sellafield and Drigg. Still to be estimated is the decommissioning of the rest of the Magnox, the AGR's and Sizewell B stations.

The decommissioning and waste management costs are at least twice the original capital costs of the stations.If collected from a levy on the electricity revenue as proposed by the developers, any problems that cause the station to close will put the burden on the taxpayer once again. So as part of the financing, the developer should put up a bond as security for its eventual "clean-up", which will in effect double or triple the capital cost of the station.

By the time the UK's current fleet of nuclear stations is shut down (the last is Sizewell B in 2035) it will have generated around £50 billion of electricity, but if the "clean-up" costs are included, it will have cost the consumer £150 to £200 billion. The government Energy Review team have decided not to REVIEW the past performance of nuclear power, but to PREVIEW "the costs and economics of new build".

The British public expect the Energy Review to be published next month to be a Preview of Tony Blair's "nuclear option". His "dodgy dossier" led us into Iraq, so it is to be hoped that he will spare us another

Has any of you watched the Sunday Nuclear Power debate on chanel nine this morning? I missed it. Hopefully the transcript will be added to their site soon.

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_2007.asp

Correction: Further to my above post on the Author's dated costings. I neglected to point out that under all the peak oil scenarios the cost of conventional power will more than double from todays figures. So that makes his costings Bull$hit to the power of 4, not 3.

Anyone who doesn't or worse won't see the gradual destruction of this planet is a fool. It is obvious that the cleaner, greener, and more efficient we can produce power the better off Earth will be. People still trying to make a quid for themselves by going nuclear should stop and think. It will only be when the last tree disappears, the last crop fails that some people will discover that "you can't eat money."

I am undecided on whether Australia should use nucleur energy although I do have some major concerns.

That being; a) this is a non-renewable resource which is inefficient in needing too much to make too little and, b) governments continue to run down every bit of essential infrastructure including electricity.

What is to stop these bean counters from taking short cuts which would eventually create a major disaster?

The only reason we are talking about this damn issue is because Johnny H was feeling the heat a touch in relation to IR and decided to throw something up to take some of our attention. Mission accomplished.

After years of ignoring Kyoto and barely forcing any industry restructuring or wholescale development of the nations public transport, we are to believe that now Johnny cares about the fact that the world is melting? Please. Or perhaps it could be that we have one of the worlds largest natural supply of the stuff these nuclear plants use - and who cares about the implications, as long as we have a coalition government running our deceivingly 'strong' economy.

Hi all
First post here I need help from you on this Could all of you in this thread that have posted views on Nuc power click on the link below and provide some feedback, WHO has got this thing and why have we not read anything about it at least myself including my circle have not
Regards
Chris
Here is the link http://www.savoiapower.com/nuclear.html

Small PWRs have a long history powering submarines. If concrete is the shielding material, inevitably thousands of tonnes of it are used, so small power output doesn't mean small size. I suspect in submarines more expensive materials that allow thinner, still effective shields, and reactor masses on the order of 400 tonnes, are used.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html

CHRISTO,
I see your point mate, the major problem for Australia that I see is this WATER needed, on the dryest continent on Earth.

Hi Shonga
Besides the water issue the more burning question is WHERE is this thing going The interested public in Australia are aware of the Lucas Heights facility But no where else Furthermore I understood that we had a NO nuclear reactors position in this country therefore the debate I have yet to find out where is this reactor is going to go and be installed I am not giving up until I do so any help on that would be welcome
Cheers
Christo

Christo,
The main factor is that the globe has 25 years of uranium left, which means to me, that the cost of building nuclear power stations, which would take at least two years to construct would mean 20 years of power for the huge expense of construction, plus the risk of another Chernobly. In my humble opinion solar, hydro, wind and other sustainable power is the best option, not only for safety, but for renewable energy, details already available on the C.S.I.R.O. website.

To me it just makes sense to have water, sunlight, and wind power which won't polute the asmosphere produce the electricity we need, it may not suit the people who want to make money from the exercise, however in my view it is the most practical option for the continuation of humanity.

Only 25 years of uranium left, eh? And the amount now being spent to extract it is less than US$5 billion a year. About five US dollars per year per OECD resident.

There is 4 billion tonnes of uranium in the sea; the whole world's land-based industry, for its annual almost-five-billion-dollars, extracts 0.00004 billion tonnes.

The most virulently antinuclear five percent of those billion OECD residents could take the initiative: for less than US$200 a year each, they could outbid nuclear fuel makers and BUY IT ALL. They could dump it all in the sea. Some nuclear electric companies have a few years' worth on hand, but when that was gone, bye-bye nuclear.

The only difficulty is that no-one believes miners, given an unflagging price in this way, would stop supplying ever-larger amounts of uranium for many centuries or millennia ...

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: internal combustion without exhaust gas:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html

Hi there
I had a long look at the boron I must say it looks like something that could work Is there any other work done on it I would appreciate any information links etc
Just to throw a twist in here clik on the link below and have a read of this There is also a website that is filled with scientific research on the same subject Have we been led as well as bled with this "fossil" theory as against an "abiotic" origin of fuel as is proposed by these fellows There are some compeling arguments put up The question in my mind is why have we not heard anything about this?
here are the links: http://www.csun.edu/%7Evcgeo005/Energy.html
Go to the scientific papers first http://www.gasresources.net/
Cheers
Christo

Response by Mark Diesendorf

It’s unfortunate that some of the postings take advantage of their anonymity to be rude, a cowardly act, since the authors of the articles sign their own names. There would be a better debate if OnLineOpinion required all correspondents to give their real names and email addresses. Anyway, here I’ll address nuclear economics.

The nuclear industry correspondents use the relatively low price of electricity in France to support their false claims that nuclear power is cheap. Unfortunately, the French nuclear power and nuclear weapons industries are so closely intertwined, that price of French electricity tells us nothing about the cost of nuclear power. We really have to examine electricity economics in countries with nuclear power that have transparently restructured their electricity industries to create a competitive market.

When this was done in the UK, no-one wanted to buy the nuclear power stations, and so the British Government had to make huge subsidy payments, as mentioned in my article. To these must be added the estimated cost of decommissioning existing nuclear power stations that has recently been increased to 70 billion pounds sterling by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (which is hardly a radical greenie group).

In the USA no-one has invested in a new nuclear power station since the 1970s, despite cumulative subsidies to the industry of about US$100 billion. Enough said!

One correspondent objects to my choice of discount (real interest) rate of 10% per annum. Right now the discount rate for buying a new power station in the UK is actually 11%. Just try to borrow money to build a new power station for less than 10% real! Don’t forget the financial risk, which is much bigger than for buying a house! The correspondent is also wrong to imagine that a doubling of the price of oil is relevant to nuclear economics. Oil is for transport and nuclear power produces electricity. However, a large increase in gas prices will assist coal, wind and (provided it can compete) nuclear.

Response (continued) by Mark Diesendorf

One correspondent claims that “32 countries have found nuclear power economic”. However, nukes have often been installed for other reasons than economics, notably nuclear weapons proliferation and security/diversity of electricity supply, especially in countries that have low fossil fuel resources, such as Japan.

The claim that the containment vessel can withstand a direct hit from a fully fuelled jumbo jet, is wishful thinking that has never been tested. Anyway, an easier way for terrorists to release vast quantities of high-level radiation, is to send in a small paramilitary force to set off explosives inside the containment vessel.

It is incorrect for the nuclear industry to claim that that the work of Van Leeuwen & Smith (VLS), on CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel chain, has been refuted. Contradiction is not the same as refutation. There is no doubt that, when uranium ore grade decreases by a factor of 10, the fossil energy required to mine and mill it will increase by at least a factor of 10. No-one has even contradicted this. There is also little doubt that reserves of high-grade uranium are very limited. However, there is debate, so far unresolved, about what is the uranium ore density where the total CO2 emissions from mining, milling, enrichment, construction, decommissioning and waste management become equal to that from a combined cycle gas-fired power station (which incidentally has about half the emissions of an equivalent coal-fired power station).

A wind turbine generates the energy required to build itself (including concrete, steel, etc) in 3-7 months of operation. All studies (except for the unpublished one from Vattenfall cited by nuclear proponents) find that the energy required to compensate for the construction of a nuke takes several years of its operation. To this we have to add the energy inputs, and associated CO2 emissions, from the other steps in the nuclear fuel chain.

In Austria and Finland about 12% and 15% respectively of electricity is generated from biomass. In Denmark, 20% of electricity is generated from wind and 12% from biomass.

Mark,
I think it has all been said, I agree with all sustainable, enviromentally friendly options, be it wind, solar, hydro etc. Anything that reduces our reliance on oil, both from an economic point of view, and an enviromental one. We must and should have done so years ago, produce energy of a non oil type, one simply to reduce demand for oil, and hence the price, and two the technology exists, it may need some R & D the federal government has a string of surpluses as long as your arm, and have failed to invest in same, prefering instead to beat the hard working, ordinary people over the head with AWA's.

Mark Diesendorf

The question of the economics of nuclear power is currently under investigation by a committee chaired by Dr. Switkowski. I believe we should wait for that committee to report before commenting further. I do not know if you will be making a submission to the panel. If that is the case then it will be of interest to see if your arguments hold up. I would guess however that the panel will concentrate on the economics of the proposed new generation reactors. The treatment and cost of old and outdated designs is of course of importance to the UK. However, it is arguable, that is of no relevance to either a possible Australian nuclear industry or the possible expansion in uranium mining.

Regarding the question of strength of containment structures; would any demonstration less then a jet engine hitting a vessel along a normal path provide the necessary proof? Since a “real life” demonstration would have to be an unethical experiment, you will have to accept modelling. Worse still from your point of view, the modelling can only be performed by the industry. Further, it is the nature of security and anti-terrorist activity for much information to be correctly kept from the public domain.

isurveyor@vianet.net.au

Stop refering to Chernobyl. That was an intrinsically unsafe design operated in a reckless manner. A full inquiry was held afterwards and Western European and American engineers could not believe there ears when they heard what had happened. The results of the inquiry were never explained in the papers. It is too technical and uninteresting for the non technical to read.

Chernobyl is irrelevent to the discussion. No one outside of the USSR has ever built or will build anything like it.

But don't listen to me. I am only a professional engineer who has studied physics including nuclear physics and worked in the power industry. I can't compete with an army of skeptics who studied Arts Sociology and other opinion influencing Degrees and who write papers frightening people and telling what they would like to hear.

Nuclear scientists are also excluded from this debate, after all they would say that wouldn't they?

Mark,

Why is it that anti-nukes always believe any argument against nuclear without even being the tiniest bit sceptical? Your continued touting of the van Leeuwen and Smith article diminishes your credibility and that of any other points you make. Why haven't they submitted their results for publication in a peer reviewed journal? Why does their data for the energy extraction of uranium, when applied to existing mines with low grade ore, overestimate the energy costs by more than an order of magnitude? Why do they only consider diffusion enrichment with coal stations providing the power (as opposed to nuclear stations providing power or centrifuge enrichment which is 50 times less energy intesive)? Why do they only use an estimate 24 year full power life for nuclear stations when modern plants can have 40-60 year life spans with capacity factors of 90% or greater? Why does Britain's Sustainable Development Commission (which incidentally comes out as against nuclear because of their optimism over renewables), chaired by a former director of Friends of the Earth, conclude that nuclear is a low carbon power source?

The answer to all of these questions is that van Leeuwen & Smith produced a report that supported their (and the Dutch government's) prejudice against nuclear power. It has little credibility beyond those who desperately want to believe it and the smarter critics of nuclear power acknowledge nuclear's low carbon contributions to the energy supply and instead concentrate their critique on nuclear's economic performance and the theoretical advantages of renewables.

Oh, and Vattenfall's full report is available for download from their website. Go have a look.

If Nuclear Power is green as some supporters claim, then why do we have to bury the waste deep underground in hard rock and cement for hundreds, if not thousands of years?

And P Slipper I think there is fundamental error in you looking at reality as The full scientific evaluation of the issue was setup by The Prime Minister, for The Prime Minister Benefit and not the community benefit.

I'm with you Mark!

I shall reiterate a question I've placed on other threads:

The USA has more nuke reactors (103) than any other nation.

Why then is the US the highest polluter per capita on the planet?

Come on pro-nukers - I've yet to receive a response from you dudes!

If Nuclear cannot be that green and clean?

Otherwise many of the pro-Nuclear people would be putting up their hands in saying they want the power station or the waste from Nuclear in their front yard.

Like the liar he has become now for Nuclear Power The PM of some in Australia saying in The Courier Mail 22/11/06 "I think The Public interested...I don't think they have the prejudice against Nuclear Power that Mr Beazley and Bob Brown have".

He would be saying a Nuclear Power station or the nuclear should be in the front yard of The Lodge in Canberra or Kirribilli House, in Sydney.

Logic please tell us why we should stop refering to Chernobyl or that
Chernobyl is irrelevent to the discussion?

As I thought it was a Nuclear Power Station?

And being an a Professional Engineer why haven't you referred to 3 Mile Island and other Nuclear Accidents like in The UK and Japan because aren't these relevent to the discussion or are you scare of the truth about Nuclear?

Also why did you say "Nuclear scientists are also excluded from this debate" as didn't you know Ziggy does have a PhD in nuclear physics from the University of Melbourne?

So yes logic maybe we shouldn't listen to you, an Professional Engineer who even those has studied physics including nuclear physics and worked in the power industry, has came up like other pro-nuclear people with flawed logic and lack of research.

From the point of view of reactor design the Chernobyl accident is not relevant. The reason is clear the RMBK design with positive void coefficient is not going to be employed ever again. The reactors in the West have containment structures, negative void coefficient and numerous safety features that are best described by a qualified nuclear engineer. Frankly, I trust members of the engineering professions.

Existing RMBK reactors, we understand have been suitably modified and are no longer a threat.

From the point of view of the authorities faced with managing major accidents, (nuclear and non nuclear, industrial or natural), Chernobyl has much to teach. One problem which comes out of Chernobyl and to my knowledge has not been publicly addressed. Is how to counter the misleading, often badly informed comments from environmental and Green groups? Indeed one must suspect the Greens of deliberately exploiting any incident by spreading alarm and anxiety. No doubt they are motivated by promoting their agenda

Anti-Green if the Chernobyl accident is not relevant, then can you explain why you feel it is relevant, when you wrote comments on Chernobyl?

Also please tell what evidence do you have to prove that misleading, often badly informed comments came from from environmental and Green groups, especially regarding The Chernobyl accident and not The Nuclear Industry?

So from this people could suspect anti-green you are motivated by promoting your agenda by spreading alarm and anxiety that is not based on facts, but misleading, information and no research?

Clearly the design, function and operation of the RMBK reactors have no relevance to the operation of reactors in the West. The Chernobyl accident was unique to the operation of a particular RMBK reactor performing an experiment that clearly was disastrous. We can be certain that the situation in 1986 will never be repeated.

Of course there are public health and disaster management lessons to be learned from the incident. The management of papillary cell thyroid cancer is a medical problem. Even given that it is a tumour of low lethality (I believe only about nine deaths have been reported). It is not a trivial disease and must cause anxiety and distress to the individuals and their families.

Lastly, I am critical of the projected or theoretical deaths based on the concept of “collective dose.”

Christo

I've had a quick perusal of the thread you recommended where the authors claim that petroleum exploration is still in its infancy and that supplies are ad-infinitum. So what, may I ask?

I have yet to find a poster who touches on the disastrous health aspects of burning fossil fuel though the argument, I agree is relevant to the health of the planet, the continuation of incinerating fossil fuels has a catastrophic health effect on all living species.

Surely, someone has researched the effects of burning hydrocarbons and the subsequent emissions such as benzene (Cat.1 carcinogen), the formation of dioxins and furans, VOCs, NOx etc. My extensive research has convinced me that fossil fuels are responsible for more deaths than perhaps any other causes and I for one do not advocate a continuing reliance on fossil fuels as a major energy source.

Governments and industry are well aware that subsequent diseases from exposure to fossil fuel emissions is an insidious process, difficult to prove and therefore frees them up from accepting responsibility.

I am perplexed by Anti-green's claim that environmentalists and Greens are "No doubt motivated by spreading their agenda". Please define what that "agenda" is, Anti-green and how they may be profiteering from that agenda.

Clearly anti-green when you are facing reality about Nuclear you come up with some excuse not to talk about it "have no relevance to the operation of reactors in the West" which strange considering you are still talking about Chernobyl, in other words Chernobyl must have relevance since you keep going on about it.

And how much research have you done if any, if you think but not proven that you believe only about nine deaths have been reported and once again misleading, often badly informed comments came from from environmental and Green groups, especially regarding The Chernobyl accident and not The Nuclear Industry?

So the lessons you need to learn anti-green is before replying again, check facts, do research and don't say something is not relevance say Chernobyl, when you are the one going about Chernobyl.

PS About a week ago The Australia printed a chart of how many deaths from Nuclear Accidents and they only reported on Chernobyl around 33 (not 9 anti-green).

So I am just wondering who does their research if any research was done maybe anti-green?

As reseach would have shown there have been other accidents beside Chernobyl like 3 Mile Island and that deaths they shown from coal, might have related to deaths in mines, which they didn't show the breakdown in deaths, so is The Australian scare of providing the truth as well?

Let me try and respond to Dickie and Kwv.

1. The Green Agenda: I am not going to summarise the aims of several diverse groups. Please consider as an example; the construction of an Australian Nuclear Industry must be stopped.
1.1 Following the principle, the ends justify the means, members of Greenpeace put on fancy, dressed as dustbins invaded Lucas Heights-A harmless undergraduate type prank. No doubt the authorities were warned in advance, so that the invaders would be treated appropriately.
OR
1.2 The recent Greenpeace video. Family on beach, nuclear power station nearby, plane crashes into the station.

2. I have explained what, in my view, is and what is not relevant regarding Chernobyl.
3. Regarding deaths from Chernobyl, my previous posting referred to deaths from papillary carcinoma of thyroid only. Re-reading the Chernobyl Forum on page16 they quote that 15 deaths from this cause have been documented up to the year 2002.
4. There were 134 cases of documented acute radiation syndrome (ARS). 28 deaths were reported in 1986 due to ARS. About 19 further deaths in this group occurred between 1987-2004. These 19 deaths were from various causes. According to the forum; “However their deaths are not necessarily –and in some cases certainly not-directly attributed to radiation exposure.”
5. Three other non radiation deaths are recorded including one case of myocardial infarction.
For further information I suggest you go to UNSCEAR-2000, The Chernobyl Forum 2003-2005 and if you can find it in a library
Cardis E et al. Cancer consequences of the Chernobyl Accident 20 years on. J Radiol Prot 2006; 26: 127-140.

So Anti-green's definition and example of an "agenda" is:

1. The construction of a nuclear reactor must be stopped

2. An undergraduate prank of members dressed as dustbins visiting Lucas Heights.

3. And a video of a hypothetical scenario of a plane crashing into a nuke reactor.

Since Anti-green has avoided the bleedin' question I now have to reiterate that question:

What is the agenda of environmentalists and Greens and how might they profit from that agenda?

Dickie

I will offer you this explanation. The Greens are an alliance of four groups of people.

GROUP 1-THE ROMATIC GREENS. Their origins can be traced back to the eighteenth century and possibly earlier. Nature was to be revered and enjoyed. The early greens saw and experienced the dirt, grim and horrors of industry. They were not interested in science and technology. Progress became a “dirty” word.

European man raped and pillaged the earth where ever he settled. The romantics yearned for a golden age, long past where the simple, rustic village life could be enjoyed. Rousseau conferred nobility on the people of far indigenous lands. Some would like to return to a pre-agricultural existence of the “hunter gatherer.” Ignored are the terrible famines that hit medieval Europe, high death rates for young and old. Pregnancy was often followed by the death of both mother and baby.

The romantics were and are against industrialisation, scientific and technological innovation. The romantics are always on the look out for perceived “victims” such as the poor, aboriginal groups, Palestinian Arabs etc.

GROUP 2- THE UNREPENTANT COMMUNIST. When in the mid 1950s it became more and more apparent that the old USSR was a slave labour camp. Anti-communistic feelings became extreme when the Red Army savagely squashed the Hungarian revolt. Western communists, Marxists need a new image. An alliance with the romantics suggested it self. Now they could continue their war against capitalism, free markets, and globalisation under a new “flag.” As a Green the former Marxist could continue to hate America and its leaders as the symbol of capitalism and free enterprise. Thus we see forming the vision of the Green Socialist State. (Continued)

What the *##*? "Marxists"? "Unrepentant Communist"? "Romantic Greens"? "Green Socialist State"?

What froth and rant, Anti-green. I understood we were discussing Australian environmentalists and greens whom, I am sure, have no desire to return to the 18th century hunters and gatherers era, as you so inanely purport!

Small greens do not support the Green Parties in all particulars, however, most support the four pillars philosophy of:

Social justice, sustainability, grassroots democracy and peace and non-violence.

There is often distinction amongst Green Parties of other nations also and perhaps you are unaware that the Greens in Australia were not formed until 1972 when a Tasmanian Green politician summed up the Party:

"We are neither left or right but forward"!

That just about sums it up for me. And "forward" does not include leaving a legacy of H/L radiation for future generations to deal with as you are recommending!

And it is precisely the backward, obsolete and arcane propaganda you are dishing up which encourages disillusioned voters in Australia to sympathise with the Greens and to also form "greenie" environmental groups.

Many people, with half a brain, realise that the current state of the environment,(which is encouraging nuclear debate) is at least partly a result of governments and their environmental agencies gleefully and greedily trashing the environment. Their ongoing, irresponsible condonation of industry polluting this fragile planet tells me very clearly that these cowboys have well and truly "missed the bus"!

So Anti-Green in writing is "4. There were 134 cases of documented acute radiation syndrome (ARS). 28 deaths were reported in 1986 due to ARS. About 19 further deaths in this group occurred between 1987-2004. These 19 deaths were from various causes".

Does this mean you lied when you said there was 9 deaths?

And how long do we have to wait before you come up evidence misleading, often badly informed comments came from from environmental and Green groups, especially regarding The Chernobyl accident and not The Nuclear Industry?

So the lessons you need to learn anti-green again is before replying again, check facts, do research and don't say something is not relevance say Chernobyl, when you are the one going about Chernobyl.

I can now continue my observations on the “Greens.”

GROUP 3- THE MIDDLE CLASS TRENDOIDS: The doctor’s wives or a Bob Geldof’s pop concert are a good example of this genre. A small donation every now and again to an appropriate charity, or a green vote at election time will solve world hunger etc. I expect that that under this heading is a small group of affluent people with feelings of guilt because of their wealth.

GROUP-4 THE EXPLOITERS: Groups 1-3 consist of the credulous and the gullible. They are open to exploitation by any individual or group that seeks political power for their own selfish ends. I include such historical personalities as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Fidel Castro and many more.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Further comment to Kwv:
No I was not lying. I was correcting a statement in relation to the long term follow up of cases of thyroid cancer cases. The following is from page 16 of the Chernobyl Forum.

“….fifteen deaths related to the progression of the disease (thyroid cancer) had been documented by 2002.”

Thyroid cancer is a stochastic effect and is in no way related to the 134 workers who suffered the acute radiation syndrome (ARS). ARS is related to the absorbed dose in Gy units and is therefore a deterministic effect.

I will take Mark Diesendorf's suggestion and use my real name. For people that do not know me, you can find out a great deal about my background with a simple Google search or by visiting my blog (Atomic Insights Blog), web sites (Atomic Insights and Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.) or podcast (The Atomic Show).

One part of my background that is that I served as a nuclear submarine engineering officer. I have spent the equivalent of about 2 years sealed inside a small ship underwater within 200 feet of an operating nuclear power plant.

That is the basis for my initial comment. Nuclear power plants are not only carbon free, but they also do not produce or release any nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, micro particulates, or mercury. All of their residues are tightly controlled and remain sealed inside corrosion resistant metal cladding.

When it comes to the fuel cycle and the construction cycle, many of the emissions assumed by Van Leeuwen and Smith’s report would disappear if the electricity supply happened to be nuclear power plants. The enrichment done in France is a good example. I think I have seen Diesendorf quote from the excellent study done in Europe called ExternE (http://www.externe.info/) when he wanted to talk about the external costs of coal; however he seems to have ignored or discounted that study's results with regard to nuclear energy.

He also seems to have overlooked the rather substantial secondary market for nuclear power plants in the United States and the fact that those plants are often being run by companies that are not regulated monopolies. As generating companies, they sell their power on an open market for a competitive price. Over the past five years the average nuclear plant in the US has run at a capacity factor of very close to 90%, and during the past several years their operating cost has been slightly above hydro, but well below coal, gas and oil. (Though oil is a fairly small percentage of our power, that portion is still more than 3 times larger than wind and solar power combined.)

Rod Adams

I suspect you have little idea of the excessive carbon emissions produced to fuel a nuke reactor.

Have a look at my post on "General" "Nuclear Renaissance Expected To Get The Thumbs Up From Taskforce".

Rod Adams, seem to over looked that a nuclear submarine is not a Nuclear Power Station?

But hey with a Year 10 Education what would I know about the different?

And he has seen to over looked you need evidence not comments especially regarding his claims:

"Over the past five years the average nuclear plant in the US has run at a capacity factor of very close to 90%, and during the past several years their operating cost has been slightly above hydro, but well below coal, gas and oil. (Though oil is a fairly small percentage of our power, that portion is still more than 3 times larger than wind and solar power combined.".

You are not lying anti-green are you sure?

Because now the deaths are 15, because wasn't it nine or some other numbers before?

And what is the link to page 16 of the Chernobyl Forum?

But then again why you believe information on a forum?

Kwv.

Let me point out to you in the gentlest way possible that education is a life long process and does not start or end with year 10. A career in science etc. requires many years of intense university study in a number of complex subjects. This stage is terminated by examinations and the award of a degree or diploma. One then goes on to write a thesis, obtain higher degrees and a doctorate. Then there is the discipline of writing papers for publication in peer reviewed journals. Another source of learning is by attending and delivering papers at national and international scientific conferences.

In the course of this work one gets to know, sometimes personally, sometimes by reputation only who is who in the field. The practising experts are to be found in universities, industry and in the various scientific agencies of the United Nations and other reputable organisations.

So why do I trust the forum: Because I look at its membership. Read and search out their references and assure myself that the majority are from journals of high scientific standing.

Below is the final paragraph of a letter dated 6th June 2000 from Lars-Erik Holm, M.D., Ph.D. (Chairman of UNSCEAR), to Mr. Kofi A. Annan Secretary-General United Nations, when he presented the UNSCEAR 2000 report. UNSCEAR was a party to the CHERNOBYL FORUM.

“May I also remind you that the United Nations (through its Department of Humanitarian Affairs), UNSCEAR, UNESCO, UNEP, FAO and several other organizations within the United Nations family, such as WHO and IAEA, as well as the European Commission and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, co-operated in the organization of the International Conference ”One Decade After Chernobyl” which was held in Vienna in 1996. This Conference concluded with an authoritative summing up of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident. UNSCEAR has just adopted its 2000 Report to the General Assembly with scientific annexes, one of which, entitled ”Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident”, updates and confirms the findings of that Conference and its general conclusions.”

You are right in part anti-green, education does not start or end with year 10, but this doesn't mean you have to goto university to get the education just like me.

As there is a thing called life.

Now back to the issue:

anti-green you need to education yourself to do research and provided other information and evidence in your comments.

As when you mentioned the forum, you never ever mentioned The Membership or the exact numbers.