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 > Say 'no' to nuclear - but not for the usual reasons > Comments

Say 'no' to nuclear - but not for the usual reasons : Comments

By Les Coleman, published 16/5/2007

Australia has a record of poor management of technologies and lacks the expertise to go nuclear.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
First of all I think that natural gas should not become the primary energy source, rather the backup source when other forms like renewables are experiencing low output. Most of the resource is in northwest WA which gives little comfort to the rest of Australia. Gas still has some CO2 emissions albeit much lower than coal but it excels as a portable fuel. I believe there will be a huge shift to compressed natural gas (CNG)to replace diesel in the national truck fleet.

As for cost and lack of nuclear expertise we have to start somewhere, if necessary paying top salaries. It is odd to have so much uranium and not run nuclear power stations for low carbon electricity and seawater desalination. As Australia moves up the learning curve we can get into lucrative waste disposal and possibly exert some control of who gets preferred customer status. Aren't the Russians going to build a nuclear station (possibly floating) in Myanmar? Australia has to learn to master the nuclear cycle quickly.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 9:45:40 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
Everyone is happy to talk about mine tailings, spent fuel rods and nuclear security. No-one ever breathes a word about depleted uranium hexafluoride, which is the by-product of the uranium enrichment process itself.

The whole shebang is claimed to be "profitable", but only if you externalise the costs by dumping the intractable problems. This one can't be buried down a hole and forgotten, because the stuff is so reactive with the environment, no matter what.

It's no good using the old chestnut of "the uranium was there anyway" - a fact on the ground, so to speak. When we create uranium hexafluoride, we create a menace for which there is no equivalent in nature.

Waste uranium hexafluoride accounts for 90% of all the effort, water, mining, tailings, processing, diesel, petrol, electricity and money expended on the production of fuel rods. Will nuclear proponents be spending their long weekends re-painting the steel containers? - or their great-great-great grandchildren? I don't think so!

This 2007 paper from the Australian Uranium Association Ltd says that our government(s) have backed away from uranium enrichment (so far):

http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm

Australia is involved in the research effort to upgrade uranium by other means, specifically the use of lasers acting upon vaporised uranium, but the materials handling and energy requirements are formidable. No banana yet, or in the forseeable future.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/u-laser.htm

The Australian public seems to be blissfully unaware of the big picture where nuclear energy is concerned - and no-one is in any hurry to inform them. The whole thing would never have gotten a guernsey if it hadn't been for nuclear bomb making, and compact power units for submarines and aircraft carriers. Power stations were almost a by-product, to soak up the huge overabundance of research and technology. One by one, they are becoming a liability as the internal nuclear environment rots their hearts out.

- a shining example of profiteering gone mad.

- and an inability to understand the basics of nature.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 10:21:47 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
"Taswegian" wants us to follow the Russian example on nuclear power.
Obviously he or she is not paying any attention to the way in which Russia is going about this. The nuclear and nuclear weapons industry in Russia are so government owned and sponsiored that the question of COST really doesn't enter into it.
If you've got the government paying the massive costs of setting up and running these industries, then Dr Coleman's financial arguments against nuclear power just don't matter.
Wherever there is such government involvement, and in dictatorships, it's much easier to get nuclear power happening.
But - notice that in democracies, not a single new nuclear power plant has been built for some 30 years.
Apart from the danger, it's just too expensive, unless the taxpayer takes on the costs of set-up, security, and waste disposal. Australia, with is huge resources in 21st century energy - sun, wind, geothermal, tidal - and of course - conservation and energy efficiency.Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com
Posted by ChristinaMac, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 10:38:11 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 don't care whether or not people have the "right" reasons for being against nuclear mining, exporting and enrichment, just so long as they are against it.

I will even side with the great unwashed left against it, irrespective of their reasons.

But, what good will our opposition do? Howard (whose party I support as the least bad of the bad) has said we will have nuclear power - end of story; and who can trust Labor to stick to any policy for long? We have the erstwhile most anti-nuclear activist in Australia (Garrett) now having to go along with whatever Labor says because he is one of them!

And, please! Voting for an extremist like Bob Brown, who is more dangerous and evil than a barrel of yellow cake, is not the answer if you were thinking of giving me one.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 11:04:41 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
This is a good article but I must, perhaps being a bit picky, make one point.

Perrow in his “Normal Accidents” (NASA buys Normal Accident theory, by the way) does not say that complex technologies that are tightly coupled, of which nuclear energy is a paradigm example, will lead to “routine” accidents. He states that a system wide accident is “inevitable” not “routine”. When and with what frequency such accidents would occur is not discussed. So, when the author here speaks of the USS Reagan etc, making a case for nuclear safety albeit outside of Oz, he is basing his analysis on a false premise. To be sure Perrow wrote in the mid ‘80s but he states that attempts to improve safety can make things worse because they can, unwittingly, add to complexity. A good research project for a PhD or something would be to look at normal accident theory and GenIII+ and GenIV, with the focus on GenIII+, light water reactors.

As an aside, for some scary bed time reading try Scott Sagan, “The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents and Nuclear Weapons.” Sagan here persuasively applies normal accidents theory to strategic nuclear command and control to demonstrate that the threat of accidental nuclear war is higher than commonly supposed, a threat that can only increase with further proliferation of nuclear weapons which could easily follow after an expansion in global nuclear energy systems. If Perrow and Sagan are right, accidental nuclear war is inevitable (though not routine: but then again nor can it be).
Posted by Markob, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 11:08:44 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
Leigh, (off topic, 'scuse me).

For the life of me, I can't understand where this mantra of "evil Bob Brown" comes from. Have you been drinking Kool-Aid?

If you nick down to Brown's place, you will find a sign on the fence that says, "Visitors welcome". Maybe you need to pay a visit.

However, you have given me a capital idea for next month's subject - Conspiracy Theories. Ta....
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 12:13:57 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
Les,

Not sure I agree with the article.
Australia have good management skills in energy processing, management and handling of energy sources. Whether its coal, Oil, Nuclear or Solar is not really relevant. Nuclear and Solar are the energy sources of tomorrow so we might as well start testing our processes and methodologies now so we can improve and lead.

Peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 12:47:28 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
I find it difficult to accept that Australia is incapable of running a nuclear power industry successfully and the author’s examples of a few minor problems with the Australian Navy or an oil plant has not convinced me that we have been incompetent in the past. How about presenting some figures on the comparative safety of Australian industry compared with elsewhere. I would like to bet we are at the very top of the league. If anything, Australia has gone completely safety crazy in the last decade. You can't do anything nowadays without a safety induction.

Have the leaks from Lucas heights been anything else but trivial?

How many people have died mining Uranium in Australia?

QANTAS is the only major airline in the world that has an unblemished safety record spanning decades. If we can run extremely unforgiving machines such as aircraft surely we can run relatively safe machines such as reactors.

France operates about 60 reactors and has done so without incident. I find it incomprehensible that Australia could not be as safe as the French. It is not like the French are safety conscious as a short drive on their roads will quickly demonstrate.

Peter Ridd
Physics JCU
Posted by Ridd, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 12:49:41 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
Accidents be buggered. It's the deliberate use that is the problem. Accidents will happen and they may be devastating on their own but directed use of this power is what we should focus on.

The US has used maximum power before and whoever has it will do so, in time.

Re Leigh. The great unwashed? You mean the Coalition supporters I assume as you surely wouldn't refer to those you don't know in this manner, right?
Posted by DavoP, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 4:38:28 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
You are certainly off the topic, Chris. You, like most of the dills on OLO are interested in only trying to make yourself look better by trying to put down people whose opinions you dont' like.

Even when you are given the opportunity to come together with an unlikely ally on an important topic, you have to keep up the childish put downs.

Go and jump in the lake, mate. I don't know why I bother: when the bad stuff really hits the fan, I'll have popped my clogs. I can enjoy the rest of my life just as it is now.

There is no reason why I should care about you and those like you and, believe me, I shall not in the future.

Grow up!
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 4:55:17 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 assume Dr. Coleman is selectively quoting from UIC Briefing Paper 14.
In the civil electric power generation industry there has only been two major accidents. AT THREE MILE ISLAND there was no loss of life and insignificant escape of radioactivity into the environment. About half the core of this reactor melted. In the CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT some 56 died and there was environmental radioactive release. The Chernobyl accident has been discussed in detail elsewhere; refer to UNSCEAR 2000, and/or the Chernobyl Forum for detailed information. No more RKMB designs are going to be produced and all the existing (about 14) have since been appropriately modified. The Chernobyl reactor did not have a containment structure.

Two major accidents only have been reported in 12,000 years of civil operation over 32 countries. There have been 10 other core melt accidents in military or experimental reactors. Windscale 1957, a military reactor designed to make plutonium. There as a graphite fire, iodine-131 release and widespread contamination. The highest child’s thyroid dose was 160mGy and highest adult dose about 60% as much. (In Jacob Shapiro, Radiation Protection 2002: chap 6:483-485).
[I would be interested to learn of updated accounts of adverse radiological consequences, if any from the Windscale accident].

Other accidents had minimal or no release of radioactivity to the environment.

Compare with the following immediate fatality rate from other power generating industries nuclear looks very good indeed. Data refers to years 1970-1992 from Briefing paper 14.
Coal 6400 deaths; 342 per TWy of electricity generation.
Natural gas 1200 deaths; 85 per TWy of electricity generation
Hydro 4000 deaths; 883 per TWy of electricity generation (Members of public due to dam failure.
Nuclear 31 deaths; 8 per TWy of electricity generation.

Wind power. http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/ for details. 349 accidents recorded since 1970’s with 41 deaths.

Wm Robert Johnston has listed almost all nuclear accidents including medical, weapon testing, criminal acts , lost sources etc since 1896. The total excluding combat 128 incidents, 197 fatalities, 1,130 injuries.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/index.html

Many more have been killed and injured on the roads.
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 5:54:20 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
Anti-green,

In the light of a study on people exposed to ionising rationed released by Massey University earlier this week, it would appear that Johnston may need to update his figures.

Dispite what governments say, radiation does cause genetic and chromosomal damage as can be viewed at http://masseynews.massey.ac.nz/2007/Press_Releases/05-15-07.htm
Posted by Batch, Thursday, 17 May 2007 2:12:34 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
Batch
It is impossible to comment on press reports. Do you have a copy of the publication?

I will however make a few general observations that may or may not be relevant to this particular work.

1. Post combat syndromes and ill health seems to have been the fate of veterans from past wars. For instance review of medical records from the Royal Hospital Chelsea shows that some veterans from the Boar war suffered from adverse medical syndromes (Brit Med J 2002; 324: 1-7).
2. The health records of 22,347 men who participated in UK atmospheric tests were studied by Darby et al (Brit Med J. 1988; 296:332-8). Control subjects were chosen from servicemen who did not participate in the tests. Controls were matched for age, rank, type of service etc.
Deaths from Neoplasm relative risk 0.96 [90% confidence interval 0.86-1.08].
Deaths from al causes relative risk 1.01 [90% confidence interval 0.93-1.23].
3. A similar study on 528 men from the Royal New Zealand Navy was conducted by Neil Pearce (Brit Med J 1990; 300:1161-6). The findings were similar to the British study. There were 4 cases of leukaemia in the exposed and 2 in the control. [RR= 5.58; CI 1.04-41.6]. Note numbers were small.
4. From press reports the Massey study consisted in comparing the number of chromosomes translocations in test and control subjects. This does not directly equate with clinical illness or disability, although it may do so.
a). It is necessary to know number of subjects examined and how controls were selected.
b) It is necessary to know measures used and statistical levels of significance etc.
c) It is necessary to know if confounding and interacting factors were considered in analysis.
d) Pearce stated that at the time of their study individual dose data was not publicly available. Do you know if the Massey study has the same limitation?

The most likely consequence of chromosomal damaged cells is limited cell division and apoptosis or programmed cell death.
.
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:06:19 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
Leigh (off topic). You are right. I was clumsy and immature - sorry!

I really am interested in what makes us tick. Politics seems to have failed us so much lately. And now this nuclear thing - another spectre, like war - spreading like a disease, nourished in equal amounts by propaganda and the urge to profit. We seem to get railroaded into one thing after another. If ever there was a time to pause for a bit of self-examination, this is surely it.

Anyhow, I'll meet you on a another thread where this topic is more appropriate.

(disclaimer: I don't belong to any political party)

Cheers
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Thursday, 17 May 2007 12:06:24 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
ChristinaMac,
"But - notice that in democracies, not a single new nuclear power plant has been built for some 30 years."

It depends on what your definition of democracy is I suppose.
France has over 50 nuclear power facilities of which only four were running in the 70's. 9 were built since 1990.

Japan has built around 15 since 1990 and has 6 due for completion by 2012.

Let alone the many plants in the planning stage worldwide.
Posted by rojo, Thursday, 17 May 2007 10:58:28 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
BATCH,

Further to my post, I received in my mailbox today a cogent critic of the Massey study. As I understand the politics of the study, it was commissioned in support of a legal action by a veterans group. My interest is in the science and not in compensation claims one way or the other.

I am unable to post the emails on this site because it is too long and it is also very technical. However, it was posted to a large professional group so the contents are in a sense in the public domain. If you are any one else are interested I can forward the information.

isurveyor@vianet.net.a
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:16:41 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
Lack of Poltical Trust, Safety and the disposal of Waste are my own main concerns with this topic of doing anything Nuclear.

There is so much more to unify us on, for good reason, before we need to afford ourselves on this topic. Humanity has a long ways to go. We have such tremendous knowledge and it is true; business groups are the leaders of innovation if we support their need to research and develop clean, sustainable and healthy practices.

I have never had more faith. Our country has embraced a new learning curve - for better or worse. We need to continue this learning regardless of the barriers.

It is our way to the future... a future for the young to bare.

Make we show them the value without Poverty for the purpose of Peace.

http://www.miacat.com/
.
Posted by miacat, Friday, 18 May 2007 8:10:07 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
Chris Shaw,
Re:uranium hexafluoride
"This one can't be buried down a hole and forgotten, because the stuff is so reactive with the environment, no matter what"

Why not? As long as it is kept dry. It does not react with dry air, only when moisture is present. Provided the hole is in the desert and not near a water table there should be no concerns.
Posted by rojo, Friday, 18 May 2007 9:57:05 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
Nuclear power actually has a good record except for one very poorly designed and operated power station in a totalitarian state. The actual amount of waste from nuclear power is very small because of the e+mc2 equation from Einstein and its storage problem is not so great. (It is not stored in steel tanks which need repainting - the anti-Nukes are great at exploiting the fears of an ill informed public).

One of the biggest problems in Australia is that the mines are so often in environmentally significant areas. This is a problem with many mines, and this we should address. Perhaps some areas simply must not be mined.

Australia's record at managing major technologies is very good - what about complex surgery performed every day in our hospitals?

Dr Les Coleman lectures in finance at the University of Melbourne. His principal research focus is on the nature and consequences of firm risks. He is pushing his own research. He is not an engineer!
Posted by logic, Saturday, 19 May 2007 10:53:05 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
rojo, if it were that easy, the Yucca Mountain complex would be done and dusted by now. Google it for details.

logic, I say again that for every tonne of UF6 produced, we have to keep 9 tonnes of dUF6. It IS stored in steel containers which need re-painting and careful inspection. The contact between dUF6 and the inner steel surface results in a skin of intermediate compound which slows corrosion. Contact between the outer surface and the atmosphere is another matter altogether. Why else do we have to paint the Sydney Habour bridge continuously?

Here is the US D of E webpage:

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/mgmtuses/storage/index.cfm

Pictures of the massive storage facilities:

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/mgmtuses/storage/where/index.cfm

Note that these cylinders are 12' x 4' dia, 5/16" thick steel. They each hold 14 tonnes of dUF6. They are stacked two deep.

A video makes it all clear (Realplayer):

http://web5.ead.anl.gov/video/duf6/fullduf6.ram

Why is this, arguably the worst of all the waste-streams, never mentioned? Because it makes a mockery of any "relaxed and comfortable" attitude towards nuclear power in Howard's Australia.

We have always made energy distribution "profitable" by dumping the spoil on the land, in the water and into the atmosphere. But nuclear spoil is something else again, and we won't get away with it this time.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Sunday, 20 May 2007 5:31:08 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
"Why else do we have to paint the Sydney Habour bridge continuously?"

Because it's 50m from the sea and takes 5 years to paint. thus it really only needs to be painted every 5 years( if you could paint it in one day).
By storing in a dry environment this repainting of containers may be unnecessary altogether.
Posted by rojo, Sunday, 20 May 2007 8:58:19 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 thought the dangers of accidents were amongst the usual reasons. However, here are a few others:
currently nuclear power contributes only a few percent of world energy. Any major expansion would lead to rapid exhaustion of economically accessible Uranium 235. Beyond that, breeder reactors could take over, but in half a century no-one has been able to get them to work.
the disposal of waste and decommissioning of out of use-by date power station will, if ever accomplished, probably require as much or more energy as the plant can produce during its lifetime
You might be prepared to cope with the accidents, but how about the bombs?
Lead time for new nuclear stations is around 15 years. There are other solutions available now. These include wind, waves, geothermal, photo-voltaic etc. Read Mark Diesendorf's Greenhouse Solutions with sustainable energy UNSW Press. And how about energy conservation?
Posted by Ned Ludd II, Monday, 21 May 2007 3:13:33 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
Ned,
"currently nuclear power contributes only a few percent of world energy. Any major expansion would lead to rapid exhaustion of economically accessible Uranium 235."

While overall energy production is low, nuclear produces 16% of the worlds electricty. France produces 70% of it's electricity by nuclear.
As fossil fuels decline nuclear will end up with a larger percentage of total energy production. As will renewables.

The price of Uranium ore has little effect on the cost of the electricity and as the price of ore increases previously uneconomic ore bodies start up. Exploration increases and more uranium is found.

On safety I think we dwell too much on the consequences of an accident, rather than the risk of one occuring.
Posted by rojo, Monday, 21 May 2007 9:16:26 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
I would be careful about placing total faith in Mark Diesendorf. He gives the answer that many greenies would like to hear, and he has done a lot of useful work, bur he is not an engineer and has played no part in developing or building practical solutions.

The reality is always a lot harder than the ideal. Also beware of enthusiasts. Dr. Price, who is an engineering lecturer and has a working background in coal, nuclear and wave technologies supports nuclear power as part of the mix. Unfortunately those who have done it get less of an audience than those who have just read about it.

A lot more can and should be achieved with energy saving and solar panels on houses, but this is only part of the answer. Things like system stability, the need for power when it is dark, or the wind is not blowing are all practical matters to be considered, neglect them and the system simply does not work.

I doubt that the energy in building and removal of nuclear stations require more energy than that saved, who actually said that, and what was their professional background and work experience?
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 22 May 2007 6:40:54 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
Ridd makes good points. Further, my understanding is, if, we were to proceed, third generation ceramic technologies would be employed. In Australia, nuclear isotopes for medicine and defence have been produced for decades, including Cobalt 60. No problems.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 23 May 2007 9:40:04 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
psychstudent:

Please note your survey times out [8-10 minutes/around wind power]

Survey did not distinguish between existing/next generation production of nuclear power. For me, this is relevant.

You should have a deeper "blind" as "psychstudent" suggests a behavioural rather than an environmental study.

Survey well setout and clear.

Good luck with data collection. It can be a real challenge.

O. PhD
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 27 May 2007 9:43:32 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. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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