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 > Dogma and delusion over renewables > Comments

Dogma and delusion over renewables : Comments

By Haydon Manning, published 18/6/2007

Many anti-nuclear environmentalists overlook the fact that much has changed since the 1970s.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
As climate woes and electricity prices rise I think the public will think that nuclear may not be not so evil after all. Nuclear opponents display a touch of inconsistency since hot granite geothermal is indirect nuclear energy and proposed giant batteries for intermittent sources may be capable of exploding. I haven't read Deisendorf's book but I believe he proposes increased use of natural gas for baseload power. In my opinion gas should be conserved for peak power, for making fertiliser and as a portable fuel when compressed in cylinders.

The reality in Australia is that hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal will be burned before any suitable replacement technology can built, nuclear or otherwise. Some green utopians might want to reflect on this as they continue their frequent flier lifestyles.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 18 June 2007 11:25:09 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
Haydon

But what about the additional argument against developing nuclear power in Australia?: that is nuclear power is often a step towards developing nuclear weapons due to the dual use nature of nuclear technology and processes.

The Federal Government can use an enrichment plant to enrich uranium to reactor grade level. The Government can then further enrich some or all of this uranium to weapons grade.

Is this a risk OR (I would) argue a BENEFIT?

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 18 June 2007 11:27:51 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 notice that little is mentioned here about weapons proliferation and nuclear power. One might want to argue that the domestic reactor debate is not proliferation relevant. But if we are to be moral agents rather than economic automatons then it is relevant in the following way. The Australian nuclear debate should be seen in the context of the global push for nuclear energy. The IPCC in its latest report did include a provision for nuclear power, at the insistence of the US (and undoubtedly also Australia); in other words the push for nuclear came from the leading climate sceptical state, although the IPCC has demanded a study on proliferation consequences. If objective what this study will find is that the global expansion of the nuclear power industry will lead to a great increase in the risk of further nuclear weapons proliferation in an increasingly unstable world. For this reason we should oppose this global expansion and, being moral agents, that means doing our bit to oppose the push for nuclear in Australia…think global, act local
Posted by Markob, Monday, 18 June 2007 12:09:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“But, in the end, with demand for electricity likely to double in Australia by mid century…”

Yet again we witness another supposed environmentalist who supposedly believes in sustainability just blithely accepting continued rapid growth in demand (for energy and just about all other resources)!!

And yet again ol’ broken-record Ludwig says; how can you possibly be genuine about sustainability, or be a true environmentalist, if you don’t see the urgent need to address this growth factor at the same time as we are addressing the ‘technofix’ factors??!!

People who address only the technical-improvements side of the equation are effectively facilitating a much larger population…and thus are effectively taking us FURTHER AWAY from sustainability!!

The president of ACF, Professor Ian Lowe, is also a patron of Sustainable Population Australia. It seems that Prof Lowe has got a much better handle on sustainability issues than Haydon Manning.

As for the merits of nuclear power, I don’t really have a strong view either way. But one thing is for sure; if it just going to prop up the continuous growth paradigm, then I’m dead against it.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 18 June 2007 12:10:50 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
Quality uranium has already peaked. It takes 30 years to get a nuclear power station to efficiency.By the time a new power station runs the resource is long past in Australia. Nuclear power stations need more electricity to 'fire up' over its life time and so creates more carbon emissions than it may save. Nuclear is in no way clean energy. Economically tax payers will have to foot the bill for what is a financial black hole, electricity prices are much higher, unless heavily subsidised by tax payers, maintenance costs and waste disposal is staggering.If Australia wishes to go 'nuclear ' it is economically in effect gambling that it will never recieve another recession. Land prices also collapse around nuclear power stations, which translate into ghetto's of the poorest will live nearby.

Nuclear powerstations have short lives, we would basically be borrowing off of our children. A nuclear power station will not benifit anybody beyond 40 years but the costs will be around for thousands of years. Even so nuclear power stations cannot supply an efficient amount of electricity and would always be of only fringe use.

Through atomic testing and nuclear station leaks the earth is already far past natural background radiation levels, a few disasters can tip the earth over the edge causing a far more horrific outcome than global warming.

If a power station were built west of the East Coast and a leak occured prevailing westerlies would contaminate the a huge arc of the continent west effecting all the eastern capital cities.Bushfires, cyclones and floods would pale as disasters. Australia has not got the resources to cope with a nuclear disaster. Our health system would not even be able to cope with the normal rates of cancer that occur in populations that live nearby.

Nobody to date has ever given a good reason why nuclear should be used.
The only benefits are a lazy government can spin nuclear as some sort of panacea to carbon emissions and the companies that run the station profit off of welfare at the nations expense.
Posted by West, Monday, 18 June 2007 12:11:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Markob in a way introduces a point. Where is the pressure to nuclear coming from? Nuclear energy is the most expensive and inefficient energy known to us. If our economic competitors already use nuclear we have a price advantage over them as our energy costs are lower. New Zealand is already positioning itself towards economic supremecy of the region by dominating their energy generation with renewable clean energy. Australia unfortunately appears to be going the other way , like an old hay seed in the middle of a motorised freeway flogging dead horses to pull its wagon.
Posted by West, Monday, 18 June 2007 12:22:49 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
as ludwig has pointed out, the real problem is population, not power.
if we start solving this problem now, it will be less painful than if we wait until we have looted the earth.

it's a finite world, people- the oil, coal, and uranium cupboards are not inexhaustible. this fact has finally appeared on the political radar, not because politicians are foresighted leaders, and certainly not because oil profits have been plowed back into windfarms and solar cells, but because petrol prices are prompting restiveness amongst the sheep.

we are going to shift to renewable energy- because soon that's all there will be. if we shift now as fast as we can, we may prevent the collapse of the world economy and consequent population crash. or maybe not- lots of well qualified people guess humanity is vastly over-represented on the face of the planet.

the only visibly sustainable human society is smaller in it's energy demand, much smaller. we can do it by reducing population through planning, or reducing the standard of living. the rich and powerful will ensure the second option is preferred, not for them, of course- for you. the first option will come from democracy, if you had it.

our best efforts may not prevent catastrophe. letting (human) nature take its course will guarantee it. that will reduce population in the traditional way- the four horsemen are waiting.
Posted by DEMOS, Monday, 18 June 2007 1:08:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West

You've recognised Markob's question but you may have chosen to ignore the answer I've alluded to. That is defence priorities underpin the overt energy reasons for nuclear.

The prospect of weapons grade uranium (and other nuclear explosives) may well be sufficient for the Federal Government to pursue the nuclear energy option notwithstanding the enviromental and economic inefficiencies of nuclear.

To achieve weapons grade uranium the Government would need to propose (or accept commecial offers for) a nuclear enrichment industry.

All this will take a lead time of say 20 years to develop. That means we can't wait till nasty little countries have gotten too far ahead of us. Within 5 years North Korea will have progressed from its current crude nuclear bombs to deliverable nuclear weapons. Iran will have crude weapons. This is in addition to Pakistan, India, Israel, China, Russia, France, the UK and the US that can, or soon will be, able to push Australia around with their nuclear weapons threats (or possible use...)

So everyone, continue to be morally and economically surprised why the Government is pushing nuclear over obvious energy alternatives. I've outlined what I see is the answer above and I think the Government is taking the best path on this issue.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 18 June 2007 1:55:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haydon Manning is part of a delusion - the Phantom Pregnancy that hopes for a Nuclear Renaissance! Haydon Manning skims cheerfully over some problem areas. For example - the "pebble bed reactors". For one thing, these are astronomically expensive. Just who is going to invest in them? OK - China - a totalitarian state, where the government foots the bill, has set up one experimental reactor. I've yet to learn of any democratic country where investors are happy to pay up - at least not without tax-payer support for the set-up, the clean-up, and any accident that might occur in the future.
The U.S company Exelon withdrew its involvement in developing pssble bed reactors in 2002.
Pebble bed reactors are not all that safe - quite a risk of accident due to loss of coolant. With the high costs, how does Manning know that the developers might reduce costs by reducing safety measures. Some reactors are planned without containment building.
I am amused that Manning thinks states could not co-operate across borders, regarding wind farms, thus providing base-load electricity. After all, Norway and Denmark are separate nations, and manage to do this quite well. Does Manning seriously think that Australian states would co-operate better with nuclear power stations?
Posted by ChristinaMac, Monday, 18 June 2007 2:34:14 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
It is depressing indeed to read arguments in favour of outdated and lethal ‘solutions’ to energy needs. 40 years ago the world supply of petroleum was deemed to be inexhaustible. It has now all but run out. Haydon Manning knows perfectly well that, pebble reactors notwithstanding, nothing has changed since Rutherford first split the atom… uranium is as limited a resource as petroleum, and there is no way to safely dispose of the waste.
I’ll repeat that. There is no way to safely dispose of the waste products and there never will be and yet nowhere in this article does he mention that most important fact. Blithely he announces that increasing numbers of Indians, Chinese and Indonesians will demand to live as westerners have lived for the last half century and therefore there is no alternative but to provide the energy.
There are loads of alternatives including an examination of the insane notion that economies and populations can expand forever.
Planet earth has one inexhaustible and reliable source of energy. It is free. There are no toxic by products. It required no mines – it is the sun.
Calculations of the cost of nuclear reactors must take into account the construction of mining equipment, mining itself, refining, enrichment, research and building of reactors, ongoing maintenance, astronomical costs of ongoing security, ongoing fuel costs, astronomical costs associated with present unsafe waste storage, constant stand-by medical centres in case of radiation leaks, the dismantling and decommissioning of these plants after their ‘life’ of around 25 years.
We have poisoned the land, air and water with our toxic wastes. We have destroyed virtually all the nature that clothed the planet up until a century or so ago. We have built mega cities riddled with crime and unhappiness. We are at war everywhere… problems directly resulting from previous decisions to pursue economic growth at all costs. Well, the costs now greatly exceed the benefits.
I'm with Ludwig, West, Demo and Christinamack, and alarmed by Plantaganet’s predictions of imminent nuclear war.
Posted by ybgirp, Monday, 18 June 2007 3:34:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the basis of Haydon Manning's article, I question his claims to be a "competent generalist" and to be striving to be objective. Membership of ACF does not make him an environmentalist. He carelessly tosses out phrases like "dogmatic", "conspiratorial notions", "anti-nuclear rhetoric" and "fallacious claim", but cannot back them up with any informed arguments or evidence.

His objection to the scientific evidence, that CO2 emissions from uranium mining and milling are increasing as uranium ore grade is decreasing, is a peculiar and illogical one. He claims, contrary to empirical evidence, that uranium "usually" occurs with other minerals, such as copper, and that the uranium is simply a byproduct.

The truth, based on data from the OECD Red Book,is that 9 of the top 10 uranium mines in the world are uranium-only mines. Roxby Downs is the exception, not the rule.

Manning's claim that the nuclear lobby is tiny compared with environmental NGOs is simply ridiculous. What about BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, ANSTO, etc? Manning's article is an excellent demonstration of dogma and delusion about nuclear power.

Finally,I suggest that people consider the evidence presented in my book, "Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy" that Australia could achieve huge reductions in GHG emissions without waiting 20 years plus for nuclear power or so-called "clean coal". As Manning admits, he has no expertise in this field.

Mark Diesendorf
Posted by Mark Diesendorf, Monday, 18 June 2007 4:57:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In my previous post I wrote;

“As for the merits of nuclear power, I don’t really have a strong view either way.”

Oh balls! What was I thinking?!

This is the first really regrettable thing I have written on this forum in 1400 posts!

I withdraw that statement…and hang my head in shame (:>(

What I should have said is that I am not willing to completely dismiss nuclear power. But my criteria for its use are so tight that is virtually a complete dismissal.

Most importantly, if it is ever to be used in Australia, it must be to make up a shortfall in energy needs in a society that is making every effort to achieve genuine sustainability, and is very likely to fall apart without that energy source, and where that energy shortfall just cannot be met by other means, nor changes in lifestyle to reduce energy demand be achievable without major conflict erupting.

So I reckon nuclear power could possibly have a small part to play in a future sustainable society. But only as a very distant last resort.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 18 June 2007 5:06:02 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
Ther are some points that will remove some objections to nuclaear power.

If Australia set up an enrichment plant to process Australian yellow
cake then the uraniun rods for power reactors could be leased instead of being sold.
You don't get more rods unless you return the depleted ones.
That prevents customers using Australian uranium for weapons.

A friend of mine spent almost all his life in the nuclear industry.
He was at a conference at the International Atomic Energy Commission in
Vienna in 1956 when the Russians described their new power reactors.

It was pointed out to the Russians that there was a flaw in the design
that could lead to a meltdown. That flaw was exactly what happened at Chernobyl.

My friend tells me that there are processes that will extend the life
of uranium far beyond what is generally accepted.
He was not talking about breeder reactors. His explanation was over
my head.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 18 June 2007 5:47:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am fully in agreement with Haydon Manning the times is about right for the commencement of a nuclear power generation industry in Australia. Indeed looking at developments world wide it can be claimed that Australia is lagging behind about thirty other countries in this area.

The recent report by Dr. Switkowski is one among several documents that describes the health and safety record of the nuclear industry. Table 6.1 states the number of accidents and direct fatalities in several industries. Results are expressed as fatalities per GWe/y.

Wind farms are quoted as having an accident and fatality rate. I wonder if Dr. Diesendorf could help in expressing wind fatalities in terms of GWe/y.

Health and safety is clearly a potent argument in favour of the nuclear power industry. The nuclear opponents are challenged to make it clear why they are at variance with the bulk of medical and scientific literature on this subject?

I will just say a few words about weapon proliferation. Much of the details on weapons are of course not in the public domain. However, a useful source of public information is:

http://www.milnet.com/nuclear.htm

It seems that weapons grade plutonium is best obtained from a dedicated military or research reactor.

Press reports indicate that Iran is going down the enrichment path. Iran is always a few years off a bomb from an ever advancing start time. It can not be easy to run 3000 centrifuges continuously in a dust free vacuum environment. The rate of production of bomb grade U-235 is slow and quantities small.

Technically a U-235 bomb appears to be easier to assemble then a Pu-239 weapon.

My own view is that this subject is for specialists. Proliferation is controlled by International agreement and overseen by the IAEA. A civil Australian nuclear industry will have no relevance to undesirable military activities in other countries.
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 18 June 2007 5:52:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No mention of nuclear waste, or that the biggest impediment of nuclear power is money. Its just not economic, not unless the government intervenes and guarantees electricity price AND accepts insurance liability, cos no insurer with a clue will insure nuclear reactors, thats how bad their safety record is.

Never mind, I'm sure Liberal Party will offer up taxpayers money to support his mining-share-owning mates/supporters, ala "clean coal" subsidies, the special status of aluminium smelters for carbon trading, & BHPs free millions litres water/day from artesian basin.

Even assuming we're willing to take the nuke industries renewed but oh so familiar "safe as houses" promises, theres still no solutions to waste or economic problems, or weapons proliferation issues other refer to.
Posted by Liam, Monday, 18 June 2007 6:36:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The current situation in regard to uranium mining in Australia is that production in 2006 was 20% down on that in 2005. This is because the Ranger mine, due to close anyway in 2008 and process the ore stocks and tailings, was flooded. But more significantly, due to lowering ore grades, the Olympic Dam underground mine production is tailing off and fell around 23% over a 12 month period. This can be confirmed by reference to the BHP Billiton quarterly reports and UIC's Australia page (www.uic.com.au/emine.htm).

University of New South Wales ISA group has shown that the average uranium ore in Australia is 0.045% and the open question is whether mining this ore grade is economic if it is not associated with co-products. BHP Billiton's Roger Higgins thinks not and reckons that without the copper and other products "there wouldn't be a mine here" at Olympic Dam as reported by Hayden Cooper on ABC Online in November 2005 as the feasibility into an expansion as an open pit was launched (ODX).

Since then due to a global shortage, the price of uranium has soared to US$ 350/kg allowing the economic "head" ore grade cut-off at the mill to be lowered. However, in the meantime the price of net imported diesel has also risen, so that it remains to be seen whether the Australian deposits averaging 0.045% will be mined or left in the ground if there are no compensating co-products as at Olympic Dam.

Even so the ODX feasibility study will not be completed until 2009, after which there will be four years of excavation before the first kilogram of uranium is reached. BHP have other options for their capital, such as shares buy-back or investment in Alcoa. So it is somewhat premature to assume that ODX will go ahead. If in spite of the co-existence of the co-products it is dropped or postponed, it can be assumed that Australia's claim to hold 30% of the world's uranium will be invalid as with or without co-products the rising cost of imported diesel will have brought an industry to an end.
Posted by John Busby, Monday, 18 June 2007 7:14:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i just wish this talk would have some consequence. but it's just chatter. we won't be initiating a referendum.

power industry executives, and/or labor union officers, will have a quiet word with the pm, and the 'prudent course' will be followed. the result will be that germany of all places leads in leads in renewable technology, and oz will wait for the tooth fairy to tell it when to stop poisoning the planet on behalf of mining shareholders..

neither will this talk lead to voting for green policy. labor or liberal will harvest the vote cascade, and neither can oppose mining interests.

stalin is reputed to have said: "you can have all the elections you want, as long as i choose the candidates."

oz is not much better off. here the politician's guild chooses the candidates, and off-stage corporations choose the policies.
Posted by DEMOS, Monday, 18 June 2007 7:32:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Engineering is an activity sustained with natural abilities and on personal technical merits mostly, of which problem solving by playing English with even demonstrated superiority in mastering senseless but grammatically correct writing helps a little.

That is why “environmentalism” is such popular among retired politicians and their junior offspring round a globe, as nuclear engineering so hostilely considered by local occupants of well paid, nothing to be responsible for positions at the universities, media and “think tanks” etc. existing to a great extent on tax payer expense heavily.

Is it in plain Aussie-English?
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 18 June 2007 7:55:37 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 often hear it said that Australia produces 1% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. This fact is cited as a blanket criticism for calls to reduce Australian emissions. Funnily enough, such a criticism has not been leveled against calls for nuclear power. Why not? Surely with vast coal reserves producing cheap electricity and responsible for only a small fraction of the world's ghgs, Australia could wait the twenty years to see whether the Generation IV reactors work as well as predicted? We might then choose to wait another twenty and see whether the Generation V designs turn out even better.

But why wait twenty years when solar thermal might offer cheaper power in less than ten years, perhaps less than five? It would be a shame to see Australia committed to an expensive technology while a golden opportunity to use her sun drenched interior goes begging. And solar thermal is but one of several technologies in it's infancy, developing rapidly, and with great potential.
Posted by Fester, Monday, 18 June 2007 8:08:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those who believe renewables are the energy source of the future are free to invest their superannuation accordingly - to 'put their money where their mouth is'.
For me, I'll stick with BHP and Rio Tinto.
Posted by Admiral von Schneider, Monday, 18 June 2007 9:10:47 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 couldn't agree more Admiral, but it's the fate of taxes I pay that concern me. You can pipe water from the Kimberlies to Perth at north of $6 per kilolitre, but the pursuit of such a scheme would be economically catastrophic. Subsidies are great to get technologies with potential started, but the disastrous state subsidised industry experiments of last century are not worth repeating. If nuclear can deliver on a cost basis then it is worth consideration. From what I see, going nuclear involves huge government subsidies over a period of at least forty years. That is a big commitment in a fast changing world. In the meantime new technologies may come to the fore, leaving the taxpayers hamstrung by a hasty decision.

One example of carbon sequestration of late is the rediscovery of Agrichar, essentially the carbon produced from the pyrolysis of organic waste. This carbon improves soil fertility and water retention, and takes many centuries to break down. The economic benefit from such a technology could make it self sustaining, whereas the economics of nuclear power are still below par.

http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1946410.htm?enviro

Sure, if someone wants go nuclear they should be free to put their money where there mouth is, not their hand in the taxpayers' pockets for the next few generations.
Posted by Fester, Monday, 18 June 2007 11:23:48 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
Thanks John Busby for showing that the Olympic Dam expansion will never happen. If uranium mining from the expansion will not happen before 2013 then we will be deep into a post-peak oil economic depression by then - there will be few remote communities (such as Roxby) left - provisioning them will be too expensive. And the cost of energy for the mining and processing of ore will defeat BHP on this one.

Since uranium produced from Olympic Dam cannot produce an ultimate energy profit, then exporting yellow cake to other countries for energy production is, basically, just a fancy way of exporting coal energy.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 12:21:48 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
Sorry MichaelLK you post is indecipherable. (understandable)
I have no idea what you were trying to say.

The time to get nuclear up and running will probably mean it won't go ahead.
It is said that peak uranium will occur in 40 years if there is a large
increase in demand. Peak oil will increase the cost of mining.

It looks like solarthermal is going to work and it has the advantage
that it could be applied in steps to existing power stations.
Certainly we should know whether solarthermal will work before we commit
to nuclear.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 8:14:00 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'm really getting tired of people using words like "less" rather than "complete;" like "cleaner" rather than "clean;" like "safer" rather than "safe;" like "reduce" rather than "eliminate." We have to start looking for "absolutes" when we discuss our environmental problems. "Reducing global warming" won't cut it." There's safer coal, but no such thing as safe coal. There's cleaner air, but no such thing as clean air. There is cleaner exhaust, but no such thing as clean exhaust.

Well, that is not exactly true. A few weeks ago, BMW invited me to visit their Engineering and Emission Test Center in Oxnard, California. While there they showed me their new "BMW Hydrogen7 Sedan." This was powered by a twelve cylinder internal combustion engine. Then they invited me to drive this marvelous car and it was the thrill of my life. Here I was driving a car that doesn't pollute at all because when hydrogen combusts it turns into pure water. So there is such a thing as clean exhaust ! ! Unfortunately this car is not yet ready for the U.S. yet because we don't have enough hydrogen gas stations to make the car practical. This is what Governor Whitman should be discussing on Washington Journal because when all our cars are running on hydrogen, internal combustion engine or fuel cells, all our other environmental problems will be solved. The reason for this is that hydrogen will only become practical when we have built at least 500 new nuclear power plants....because at that point the price of electricity (which is the only way to practically produce hydrogen) will have plummeted to the point that the cost to drive (all) our cars will be about the same as if gasoline were about 50 cents a gallon today.

NUCLEAR GREEN,

Ralph Andrews, President

If you would like pictures of the hydrogen BMW and/or Shell gas stations for hydrogen please email me at ralph@nucleargreen.org
Posted by Troublemaker, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 8:24:03 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
Michael k's comments were about as comprehensible as all the other posts supporting the dirtiest, most dangerous technology humans have ever been stupid enough to invent.
I realise this site is just idle chat, but it is alarmingly revealing. Do all you people promoting the notion of nuclear really not give a damn about the problem of waste? Do you really think it will be great to have used enriched uranium rods returned to us to dispose of? Where? How? Is the rational part of your brains switched off? Are you hoping one of the gods will solve this intractible problem? Walter Raleigh was wise 500 years ago when he wrote:
I wish I loved the human race
I wish I loved its silly face
I wish I liked the way it walks
I wish I liked the way it talks
And when I'm introduced to one
I wish I thought what jolly fun.
Instead, away I want to run.
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 12:38:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia is too diverse with a relatively small population to justify nuclear power in the short term. In the medium to long term, it is a possibility.

Mine uranium (with conditions), sell it (with conditions) – but we don’t need nuclear power plants in Oz just yet.

Nuclear costs a lot (in more ways than dollars) and the alternatives (geothermal and solar thermal for base load power for example) can be implemented NOW if we really wanted to.

Other renewables will and should play a part but it is a mine field with NIMBYs.

“Clean coal” – yes, go for it, but it is still years away from big time.

For now, individuals can improve personal energy efficiency (or their carbon footprint).

Improved energy efficiencies is a must for big users (and emitters of GHG) – and get rid of the subsidies for the vested interest groups in maintaining the status quo (e.g. aluminium smelters and the traditional coal mining lobby).

And let’s not forget our land and water (mis)use policies, seriously in need of an overhaul.

Transport fuels, it really is cheap! WHY?

Biofuels, they’re not that cheap and they’re really not that clean.

The upcoming federal election? Even if Rudd’s party won, they would still have a hostile Senate to contend with (not necessarily a bad thing).

We need political leaders and business leaders with a vision – where are they?
Posted by davsab, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 7:03:14 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
Commentators might be interested in my analysis of the Olympic Dam expansion in an article for Sanders Research Associates entitled "The big hole" on http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1122&Itemid=105

In my view the desalinated water from Wyalla will be needed for drought relief for farmers rather than used for ore processing.
Posted by John Busby, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 7:48:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Try Googling this - it’s worth a read.

Reactor Science and Technology October 1952 TID-2003 (DEL) Vol. 2 No. 3
[US] Atomic Energy Commission

T Keith Glennan - Editorial

[selective quotes]

"The Atomic Energy Commission and its staff, during its early stewardship of the [atomic energy] program, speculated at length on ways of bringing industry into the atomic energy picture on a more realistic basis, consistent with our normal competitive private enterprise economy.

On June 20, 1950, [Dr Charles A Thomas, the Executive Vice-President of Monsanto Chemical Co ] sent the Commission a letter, stating that he believed the time was ripe for industry, with its own capital, to design, construct and operate reactors for the production of plutonium and power.

This suggestion was based on the following assumptions:

that the long-term military requirements for plutonium exceeded the then existing and planned production facilities;

that it would be desirable to reduce the cost of this metal to the government;

that it would likewise be desirable to make use of the large quantities of heat attending the production of plutonium and not being utilized under existing conditions; and finally;

that the most nearly practicable use of such heat would be for the generation of useful quantities of electric power.

It was Dr Thomas's contention that the program … would offer industry an opportunity to contribute to the reactor program directly and to earn a profit which could be related to the effort put forth"

The penultimate paragraph of this 1952 editorial states that:

“A multitude of other factors also must be considered, such as preferential position, adequate security measures, suitable safety precautions, public relations and international relations.”

Waste disposal does not get a mention.

Will 500 more nuclear reactors making hydrogen for automobile fuel help solve these problems, now or ever? In your dreams. Look at the US solution to the public liability issue: The Price-Anderson Act! What will Australia’s solution be?

No doubt the current government, firmly rooted in the 1950’s can reinvent the wheel to their satisfaction - or maybe borrow a fifth wheel from the USA
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 10:37:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fifth wheel is sometimes helpful-and the more the lesser four others reliable become.

Natural resources definite are as using renewable energy is still a wish only.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 19 June 2007 11:45:21 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
Yes, I see it as essential that Australian remain in a Pollyanna state of denial concerning nuclear threats. Lets set a Ghandi-esque example of niceness.

We must be clean, and green. We have no enemies if we are nice. However should we be passively shielded by the US nuclear umbrella like our Kiwi cousins?

Something to mull over:

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1057723

"Tuesday, October 10, 2006 HONG KONG: North Korea’s nuclear test has an unsavoury connection with the sub-continent: Pakistan’s brazen complicity in helping North Korea build the bomb in return for missile technology. It’s a connection that the world has been blind to for some years now, despite compelling evidence of Pakistan’s involvement, because it was seen as a frontline ally in the “war or terror” since the 9/11 attacks on the US.

Journalist and author Seymour Hersh has noted that in June 2002, a CIA document, had revealed that Pakistan had been sharing sophisticated technology, warhead-design information, and weapons-testing data with North Korea since 1997.

That year, according to the report, Pakistan began paying for missile systems from North Korea in part by sharing its nuclear-weapons secrets. Pakistan also sent prototypes of high-speed centrifuge machines to North Korea, and sometime in 2001 North Korean scientists began to enrich uranium in significant quantities."

We can't be touched. We're Europeans in mystical yet quaint Asia (not).

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 20 June 2007 12:04:05 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
'plantagenet' says,

"... nuclear power is often a step towards developing nuclear weapons due to the dual use nature of nuclear technology and processes.

"The Federal Government can use an enrichment plant to enrich uranium to reactor grade ..."

It's easier to make a reactor for producing bomb-grade plutonium than to make an economical power reactor. There's also the reactor-independent Hiroshima route.

That's just the way it is. I don't make the rules. The good news is that this, plus the relative junkiness of the plutonium from economical power reactors, puts them above genuine suspicion. The proliferation argument is just another petrodollar casuistry.

Uranium is intrinsically reactor-grade: natural UO2 can burn in a matrix of carbon or heavy water. Enrichment is necessary only if it is to burn under ordinary water.

The natural richness of uranium 1.8 billion years ago was higher, and it then could, and did, burn in wet ground. This tended to heat the ground and dry it out, two effects that both retard the reaction, so it went slowly for tens of thousands of years. More at http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdf

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Posted by GRLCowan, Wednesday, 20 June 2007 3:18:08 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
Nuclear weapons are a waste of resources and bad strategy. Australia would adopt a better defence strategy by researching and building up stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. Australians could be immunised and enemies brought to genicide.

The U.S currently have mature millitary robot research programs. Their wars in the future will be fought mainly by machines even in a post nuclear genicide.

Currently nuclear energy is generated to recharge ipods, allow workers to watch big brother and to waste most electricty in lighting the skies above cities and highways. Soon we will run out of quality grade uranium and nuclear war heads will have to be dismantled to recycle plutonium to keep the nuclear reactors running a decade more.
Australia would be better off for a fraction of the cost of nuclear running a cable from NZ and buying clean energy from there.

It is a small planet people , there is already raised radiation levels in Adelaide, Brisbane , Sydney and Melbourne from the tests at Maralinga. There are 1500 asbestos particles in a cubic metre of air from past milling over 30 years ago. Lead in soils along roads from the age of leaded petrol. Carbon dioxide from the first FJ Holdens are probably entering your lungs this moment. We have to get smart in how we do things, we are effectively drowning in our own muck.

The question is do we want to risk burning pin holes in our childrens and decendants cells so we can see a McDonalds sign from 20km, beam streetlights out into space and watch imported garbage on television?
Posted by West, Wednesday, 20 June 2007 9:39:22 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
We Australians would be served better at investing the money to be wasted on nuclear into more socially, economically and militarily advantages sectors such as stem cell research and robotics.

Uranium is a precious resource but not to us. For us it is inefficient and we have no worthy use for it. If we and our decendants can survive our religious wars and our over consumption the next major boom for humankind will be space travel, exploration and exploitation. We wont see it , it will happen in one or two hundred years. To go into deep space our decendants , the carriers of our genes, our children so to speak will need nuclear energy to escape their dependency on the sun. If we waste nuclear energy on toys and cooking up dinner parties or as weapons of tantrums because our gods dont lift a finger against his enemies we will seal the fate of human kind to extinction. We wont be able to expand and will be vulnerable to the wheel of fortune that will bestow this planet.

We are at this time the greedy piggy generation, its time we grow up and work with the future , not against it.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 20 June 2007 9:53:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, West, surely “We [you?] are at this time the greedy piggy generation, its time we grow up and work with the future , not against it”. And the future does not belong to kowtowing up to overseas masters mere racists exporting their dirt while simultaneously mentoring the rubbish-recipients on environment, no practical personal expertise in.

That is why a “We Australians would be served better at investing the money to be wasted on nuclear into more socially, economically and militarily advantages sectors such as stem cell research and robotics” is like building pokies venues for "improving economics and finances" of the poor robbed and betrayed, made once again to substantiate fat national-liberal cats’ tax savings the most recently.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 20 June 2007 11:51:22 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
re:
"My own view is that this subject [non-proliferation] is for specialists. Proliferation is controlled by International agreement and overseen by the IAEA. A civil Australian nuclear industry will have no relevance to undesirable military activities in other countries.
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 18 June 2007 5:52:43 PM"

Let's rephrase it as:

"A civil IRANIAN nuclear industry will have no relevance to undesirable military activities in other countries."

Spot the difference?

To suggest that an Australian nuclear industry, or any country's nuclear industry, will have no relevance to global proliferation is to make a grand, sweeping gesture and reach a grossly improbable conclusion.

I guess it make sense if you have no understanding whatever of the relationship between nuclear electricity and nuclear weapons.

The nexus which enabled the birth of the nuclear electricity-weapons weapons industry is dated to October 1952, in my post above.

Consider the arguments put forth by Amory Lovins, in
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E77-01_TheRoadNotTaken.pdf

Lovins makes the following, highly prescient observation, toward the end of his article, originally published in "Foreign Affairs", October, 1976:

"Finally, as national purpose and trust in institutions diminish, governments, striving to halt the drift, seek ever more outward control.

We are becoming more uneasily aware of the nascent risk of what a Stanford Research Institute group has called "…'friendly fascism'—a managed society which rules by a faceless and widely dispersed complex of warfarewelfare-industrial-communications-police bureaucracies with a technocratic ideology."

In the sphere of politics as of personal values, could many strands of observable social change be converging on a profound cultural transformation whose implications we can only vaguely sense: one in which energy policy, as an integrating principle, could be catalytic?"

"This article [Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?
By Amory B. Lovins] is reprinted from Foreign Affairs, October 1976, ... Copyright 1976 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc."

Many readers here will agree that we have moved in the direction of the Orwellian transformation described above. A look at the Rocky Mountain Institute website suggests that Lovins is too busy, committed, engaged and successful to stand around telling everyone "I told you so."
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 20 June 2007 12:09:00 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
GRL Cowan

You said “It's easier to make a reactor for producing bomb-grade plutonium than to make an economical power reactor.”

I agree that its technically easier to build what is effectively a nuclear explosives factory. However most nuclear programs have found a dual use façade politically essential particularly in the early stages. By politically I mean taking account of public opinion (most would reject Australian made nuclear weapons so we’d have to beg for US weapons) and diplomatic relations (ASEAN countries and NZ would also oppose a nuclear armed Australia).

So the Government needs to operate by stealth supporting “nuclear power” for its dual use potential. The public can hardly imagine how dangerous the nuclear threat from other countries will be in 20 years time. I’ve attempted to establish the risk in my posts above and on my website http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Will we want to be even more dependent on Uncle Sam for our nuclear protection in 20 years than we are now.? This is the unintended result Pollyannaism will attract.

While the public will be surprised in 10 years time that the Government has had to hide a nuclear weapons program I believe its better to be honest. If the people reject it they’ll know why our Government needs to continually suck up to the US.

WEST

You say “Nuclear weapons are a waste of resources and bad strategy. Australia would adopt a better defence strategy by researching and building up stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons..."

In terms of surprise and effectiveness your proposal is out of touch. Enemy retaliation might be nuclear, or a contagion for which there is no immunity, or nerve gas (no defence).

I’m mainly talking about highly accurate and small nuclear weapons to take out hardened targets (enemy missile silos, command bunkers) and invasion fleets.

Doomsday weapon’s have not been seen as essential since the 1970s when accuracy was poor and mutually assured destruction (MAD) was the reigning doctrine.

I hope this isn’t too incompatible with environmentalism.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 20 June 2007 3:14:02 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
Sir Vivor,

The final sentence of my posting was: “A civil Australian nuclear industry will have no relevance to undesirable military activities in other countries.” From the public information available I see no reason to revise that statement or to postulate any connection between a future Australian industry and the nuclear ambitions of Iranian ayatollahs.

Given that the laws of physics are universal one can always make the claim that civil and military industries are in some way connected. For instance manufacture of cars and lorries on the one hand, tanks and military vehicles on the other. The same can be said for ship building, steel making, the chemical industry and many other arbitrary nominated industries.

As for the Rocky Mountain Institute and its spokesman, it is my understanding that this is just another anti-nuclear and environmental advocacy group.

The question of nuclear waste disposal has again been raised by some. A reading of the Switkowski report or the papers on the Uranium Information Centre indicates that technically this is not an insoluble problem. Clearly waste has to be managed with care, but this does not mean it can not be managed. The main obstacles to waste management in this country are sections of the ALP and the environmental movement.

On the question of transport of high level nuclear waste, I suggest that there is far greater potential of explosive damage in a km of natural gas piping or a fully laden petrol lorry driving through the streets of a capital city.
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 20 June 2007 3:27:16 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 can attest to the devastation a petrol tanker can do. We get snow here and this January my house was repeatedly shaken by bursting tires and gas tanks after a number of cars crashed and blocked the highway, and a petrol tanker either crashed or stopped safely, and another trucker hit it. I'm told he died.

But the tax on that load had, I believe, been paid; that tax is what animates this debate. It is between the oil and gas interests, especially those who get their cut through the tax man, and everyone else. Many truckloads of nuclear waste have been transported, none has ever harmed a living soul, and no-one is concerned that any ever might.

I hope to win the world over to incombustible motor fuel, which would in theory be less risky, when trucked, than nuclear waste, and would, I think, match its record of harmlessness in practice.
Posted by GRLCowan, Thursday, 21 June 2007 10:01:41 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
re:
"Given that the laws of physics are universal one can always make the claim that civil and military industries are in some way connected."

I am not talking about universal laws of physics, I am talking about the influences on and interactions of decisionmakers in sovereign states. In short, what one nation does influences what another nation does.

In the case of nuclear proliferation, both horizontal and vertical, this set of interactions may be be arguably dated back to August, 1939, when Albert Einstein wrote to Franklin D Roosevelt about his concerns, arising from his understanding that "Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from mines that she has taken over" and that, at the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute, at that time, "some of the American work on uranium is now being repeated."
(see http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html for comment and letter text)

The consequence of this pattern of interactions has been the development of nuclear arms, and a supporting and subsidised industry producing nuclear electricity and feedstocks for the nuclear arms industry. This is a matter of common knowledge and widespread concern.

These concerns, among others pertinent to this forum, are raised in a current "Roundtable Discussion" at The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' website.

But since Amory Lovins is one of the 3 invited contributors to that discussion, anti-green may wish to look elsewhere for facts and opinions.

See
http://www.thebulletin.org/roundtable/nuclear-power-climate-change/

"Nuclear power and climate change

"In Progress: 13 June 2007

"When considering ways to limit carbon dioxide emissions, experts argue that all options should be considered—including nuclear power.

"But with nuclear power comes concerns about proliferation, waste disposal, and cost.

"R. Stephen Berry, the former Special Advisor to the Director of Argonne National Laboratory for National Security, Amory B. Lovins (PDF, 35 KB), the chairman and chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, and Peter A. Bradford, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, consider the feasibility of nuclear power as a remedy to climate change in the Bulletin Online’s inaugural roundtable."
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 21 June 2007 10:44:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"subsidised industry producing nuclear electricity ..."

This appears to be a lie. Several countries with no nuclear weapons have a nuclear electricity industry, and some have declared an intention to shut it down. Simply withdrawing the subsidy, if one existed, would accomplish this quickly and lucratively (the subsidy money would be freed up). The fact that countries declaring this intention tend to delay and delay and delay suggests they can find no quick, rewarding way of doing it, and specifically, that there is no subsidy.

" ... and feedstocks for the nuclear arms industry. This is a matter of common knowledge and widespread concern."

It is a commonly uttered lie. The concern is not genuine.
Posted by GRLCowan, Thursday, 21 June 2007 11:31:37 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
“Flexibility of Australian employees” has been cited as the most requirement of Australian employers. Practically, a “letter manager” might carry babysitting functions by driving boss’s kids to school, not speaking of other cliché-known more intimate functions, engineers are seen as simple evaluators and handymen, and a book-keeper told me she was asked to clean office toilets as a part of her duties, during interview recently.

Ones should be very naïve or hypocritical convincing themselves that nuclear energy is for a peaceful goal only. Yes, it is, but…

And Australia is ALWAYS to rely on the US military capability as long as islamists did not size power locally-or in the States.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 21 June 2007 12:44:28 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
re:
"subsidised industry producing nuclear electricity ..."

This appears to be a lie. Several countries with no nuclear weapons have a nuclear electricity industry ... "

" ... and feedstocks for the nuclear arms industry. This is a matter of common knowledge and widespread concern."

It is a commonly uttered lie. The concern is not genuine."

Wrong.

These quotes from my post are not lies, they are generalisations. To be lies, specific and untrue examples would need to be cited. I have given none.

I suggest you rule out any subsidies, anywhere, with a more convincing argument. You may start with the USA, since they are a free market economy with a well-developed nuclear industry.

Regarding the US nuclear industry, The Glennan Editorial also states that:

"... all parties [Monsanto, Commonwealth-Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and Dow Chemical Co]concur in the belief that dual- purpose reactors are technically feasable and could be operated in such a fashion that the power credit would reduce the cost of plutonium by a considerable amount.

"Conversely, all groups agree that no reactor could be constructed in the very near future which would be economic on the basis of power generation alone. The significance of these conclusions should not be overlooked. They imply that there now exists a basis for the creation of semirisk industrial nuclear- power enterprise while the military demand for plutonium continues."

Concerns about dual-use nuclear technology are genuine. What evidence can you offer that Australia will not offer substantial subsidies for the development and ongoing operation of a nuclear electricity industry, and then embark on a nuclear weapons program? Some contributors here already are positive about that idea.

My own guess is that our current Australian Government will use the Zwitkowski Report, produced at the taxpayer's expense, to justify preferentially developing nuclear electricity, with taxpayer subsidies. I expect this will be at the cost of better energy strategies which address our overall energy needs, here and now; and at the cost of developing an energy policy and strategy which offers greater genuine national independence and security.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 21 June 2007 1:31:50 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
Sir VIVOR

Thank you for your reference to the Szilard-Einstein letter. This is clearly a document of great historical importance. The story is told by Richard Rhodes in “the Making of the Atomic Bomb.”

As for your statement:

“…… the influences on and interactions of decision makers in sovereign states. In short, what one nation does influences what another nation does.”

I can only say such a wide and general statement may be true. However, the relevance of the statement to a civil Australian nuclear industry is entirely speculative?

The arguments of Amory Lovins are less convincing. Ultimately the economics of nuclear power will be settled by a combination of government legislation and regulation on the one hand, and investment opportunities on the other. It is anybodies guess how this will work out in future years. A carbon tax and the costs of a so-called carbon market and credits system will clearly favour nuclear generation over coal and even clean coal.

I can not accept the assertion of environmentalist that nuclear waste disposal and transportation are insoluble problems. Expert opinion offers the solution of geological sequestration. Recall that waste decays exponentially and that after 40-50years of storage both the heat and radioactivity have fallen to one thousandths of the initial level. By 1000 years most of the radioactivity will have decayed. A good source of information is the UIC briefing paper no 9 updated to April 2007.

Let us make the assumption that the principal forcing factor for climate change is anthropogenic CO2 emission. Nobody, as far as I am aware, suggests that nuclear power is the only solution. The suggestion is that it should have a prominent role in the mix of possible solutions.

As I stated previously, I find the health and safety aspect of nuclear power, a most compelling reason for adopting this technology.

Overall I believe the prospects for the future development of nuclear power industry in this country are very good indeed
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 21 June 2007 1:43:16 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
This is short and sweet. I've read all the diatribes about nuclear power...mostly negative, but, happily, a growing number of people are coming to their senses and are beginning to understand the following truth: THERE IS ONE, AND ONLY ONE, WAY TO END GLOBAL WARMING AND THAT IS WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY REPLACING ALL OTHER FORMS OF POWER.

Anything else, such as windmills, solar panels, and fuel made from vegetables are nothing more than "band-aids" and will do little or nothing to solve our environmental problems. They don't even BEGIN to keep up with population growth. If you want this planet to have a future, nuclear energy is the only way to go! Please visit our website, www.nucleargreen.org.
Posted by Troublemaker, Thursday, 21 June 2007 2:36:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Troublemaker, can you please tell me why you're ignoring geothermal or solar-thermal as a source for base load energy apart from the fact you may have a vested interest as part of the nuclear lobby?
Cheers
Posted by davsab, Thursday, 21 June 2007 3:13:51 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
DEMOS made this comment on a different thread where it was off-topic:

“…but he [Ludwig] did admit to tolerating nuclear power”

In response I repeat:

“But my criteria for its use are so tight that it is virtually a complete dismissal.”

“if it is ever to be used in Australia, it must be to make up a shortfall in energy needs in a society that is making every effort to achieve genuine sustainability, and is very likely to fall apart without that energy source, and where that energy shortfall just cannot be met by other means, nor changes in lifestyle to reduce energy demand be achievable without major conflict erupting.”

“So I reckon nuclear power could possibly have a small part to play in a future sustainable society. But only as a very distant last resort.”

Sustainability comes first. Nuclear could possibly have a part to play in achieving it, despite its very considerable negative aspects. But the length of time before any nuclear power station could come on line makes it extremely unlikely.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 21 June 2007 7:00:19 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
To Davsab

You are referring to exhaustible forms of energy. They are, at best, like the ones I mentioned: Simply band-aids that cannot possibly keep up with population growth. There are no other permanent solutions...only nuclear. Our long-range target MUST be nuclear, and only nuclear. When all power on this planet is generated by clean, safe and inexhaustible nuclear power it will, indeed, be a "green" planet once again.
Posted by Troublemaker, Friday, 22 June 2007 8:23:06 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
Troublemaker it is a suburban myth that nuclear energy does not contribute to global warming. Lets put aside the fact that to start up a nuclear powerstation requires more pollution producing electricity than the gains made in later decades when the nuclear plant meets maximum efficiency. The pollution created in mining and refining and disposing of the waste are still major contributors of greenhouse gasses. Nuclear energy is a greenhouse gas producer but it is twice as bad polluter than coal because not only is there radio active waste to contend with , inevitable radiation leaks of both plant and waste depot over 1000's of years but also the immense resources to cap aging power plants over decades let alone 1000's of years.

Nuclear power contributes nothing to stop climate change, nuclear power contributes to global warming.

Nobody benefits from nuclear energy except companies that recieve welfare/subsidies from governments to produce it.

Just by washing your dishes by hand in cold water rather than using a dishwasher you are doing more to prevent climate change than by finding alternative forms of power.

It is ridiculous to even contemplate nuclear energy (nuclear energy will take 30 years to supply a few percent of our energy needs for only 10-15 years) when more greenhouse could be stopped simply by making motorists ride bicycles to work. Most motorists live within 20km of their employment a short bike ride.
Posted by West, Friday, 22 June 2007 9:14:06 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
Troublemaker,
The sun is an inexhaustible source of energy. nuclear fuel is not.You are deluded.
you want energy production to keep up with the rising population of the planet. it is the already over-populated planet that is the source of our problems. If you think the human population can go on increasing ad infinitum, you are again deluded.
As West said, wash your hands in cold water and ride a bike. I add the suggestion that you encourage everyone you know to stop breeding.
Posted by ybgirp, Friday, 22 June 2007 11:21:28 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
Haydon Manning's membership of one or other environmental organisation is irrelevant. After all, Philip Ruddock wears an Amnesty pin. Where Haydon comes from is clearly shown by the way in which he tries to belittle rather than analyse Mark Diesendorf's scholarly and closely referenced work, while citing approvingly the effusions of the mining industry's Uranium (dis?)information Centre.
Just to comment on one point Haydon makes: When we point out that easily accessible uranium cannot last long if world-wide nuclear power were to really take off, we are not concerned with dollar costs, but with the energy investment required in the tortuous process of mining and enriching the stuff. That, in the case of Roxby, (and Roxby only) uranium can be considered a by-product is irrelevant from the point of view of energy production.
I cannot understand the term base-load, meaning that it can be generated 27/7 every day of the year. There is no such animal. Indeed, Hazelwood was criticised on the ground that each unit was too large. The notion of having one bloody great boiler and turbine aggregate for the whole of Australia is obviously ludicrous; whether the demand can be met by capacity of one particular technology alone or a mixture is purely a matter of logistics. Of course, if you are determined to reject all manner of renewables in favour of someone's pet technology any obstacle will do.
From the Howard government's and the mining industry's point of view there is one major advantage shared by uranium and "clean coal" technology: it will take 12-15 years to develop, during which time much fossil fuel energy will have to be expended on these projects and politicians will be excused (in their eyes) for doing nothing except talk. Uranium energy has the added advantage in Australia that it is politically highly divisive, delaying the day of reckoning still further.
Posted by Ned Ludd II, Friday, 22 June 2007 12:06:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To West & ybgirp

You're dreaming! Do you really believe washing your hands in cold water will help the environment? Do you really believe people are going to change their habits to save the environment? Do you really believe people will want to ride bicycles to work when there are so many great cars to drive? Get real ! ! Do you really believe that ANYONE will want to stop reproducing children ? ?

With respect to costs you have no idea what you're talking about. Plants built by Areva in countries that have gotten rid of their "overkill" safety regulations cost less than a third of what they presently cost in Australia or the U.S. I'm not talking about ANY nuclear power plant, I'm talking about the "cookie cutter" plants being built NOW by Areva. They are safer than any existing nuclear power plants, and all 441 plants now operating have a perfect safety record. No other industrial technology can equal that record. Those are facts, not wishful thinking.

You must face it. There is only ONE answer to global warming and the pollution that is causing it and that answer is NUCLEAR POWER. It is the answer and the only answer. Face it, because it's the truth. I urge both of you to visit our website, www.nucleargreen.org. You might learn something in spite of yourselves. :-)
Posted by Troublemaker, Friday, 22 June 2007 2:56:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
antigreen - re:
“.. the relevance of [international influences] to a civil Australian nuclear industry is entirely speculative"

What about speculation regarding France, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea? Was the relevance of their civil nuclear industries also "entirely speculative"?

An ABC Background Briefing program, 3 September, 2006 includes:

"Sir Phillip Baxter[archived]: "It is of the greatest importance for the long term security of Australia ... that the option to make such weapons be kept open."

"Tom Morton: Opposition leader Kim Beazley has ruled out any move towards enriching uranium under a Beazley Labor government."

"In a recent speech to the Sydney Institute, Mr Beazley argued that enrichment would send all the wrong messages to countries in our region, because it would raise the spectre of Australia acquiring nuclear weapons."

"Kim Beazley: There's a strange echo here of Liberal Prime Minister John Gorton's attempts to keep Australia out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and his plans for uranium enrichment in Australia back in the 1960s.
At the time Gorton hid his motives, but 30 years later he too admitted the truth, saying, 'We were interested in this thing because it could provide electricity to everybody, and could, if you decided later on, it could make an atomic bomb.'
That's just another reason it's so irresponsible for John Howard to talk up processing without addressing the strategic policy issues that arise."
How would John Howard reassure our neighbours that processing facilities in Australia did not reflect wider Australian nuclear ambitions?”"
Posted by Sir Vivor, Friday, 22 June 2007 6:46:10 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
"Addressing the strategic policy issues that arise"...

Who trust Australia anyway?
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 22 June 2007 8:27:32 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
Troublemaker seems to think that heat generated by the Earth’s ‘internal combustion engine’ is an “exhaustible form of energy” and no doubt will end soon (if it does, forget life as we know it, the planet would not exist anymore).

Australia is well placed to utilise this form of energy source (so called 'hot rocks' technology) to power its needs. This “exhaustible form of energy” is the basis of geothermal power and will outlast any nuclear resources by hundreds of millions of years.

Troublemaker also seems to think that our Sun is also an “exhaustible form of energy” and no doubt will end soon (if it does, forget life as we know it, the solar system would not exist anymore).

Australia is well placed to utilise this form of energy source (so called 'yellow ball in the sky') to power its needs. This “exhaustible form of energy” is the basis of solar-thermal power and will outlast any nuclear resources by billions of years.

Nuclear power is ok in some countries, and the technology for its safe use will only get better. However, WE DO NOT NEED NUCLEAR POWER IN AUSTRALIA YET and probably won’t for a long time to come – for the many reasons alluded to in previous posts and contrary to what many in the nuclear lobby (including the Troublemaker) suggest.
Posted by davsab, Friday, 22 June 2007 11:09:10 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
Surely, horses pollute air much less than "Puffing Billy", but both them hardly help to overcome a tyranny of distance even physically.

By a way, there is an official recomendation in the UK to increase import of a meal in order to decrease own meal production as a step for cutting green gases.
Posted by MichaelK., Saturday, 23 June 2007 2:57:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No-one on this thread appears concerned about low-level radiation emitting from nuclear reactors.

There are now some alarming statistics disputing previous claims that LL radiation prevents no immediate danger.

Scientist, Christopher Busby, who has a 1st class honours degree in chemistry and a PhD in chemical/physics has given expert evidence to the European Parliament on low-level ionizing radiation and its effects when interacting with matter. His research into drug receptor interactions has been extensive.

The UK Herald, only today, has reported on the Scotland National Health Service's resistance to the release of local statistics on childhood leukemia around the Chapelcross nuclear reactor in the UK, where leukemia is purported to be double to other areas.

The Scottish NHS appear determined to keep the statistics secret and despite Freedom of Information, have appealed against an order for the release of these documents.

It appears that the usual cover-ups prevail, similar to the antiquated Chernobyl disaster, where scientists failed in their health statistics to include the fall-out over other countries where contamination from Chernobyl occurred and is continuing.

The scientifically acclaimed author of "No Immediate Danger" devotes an entire chapter to the cover-ups within the nuclear industry (including the arms' race) which the author claims is depleting the human store of health.

I remain convinced that the "dogma and delusion" is not from the proponents for renewables but rather from the pro-nuclear industry which is determined to achieve its goals for a more radioactive planet.

Surely, the nuclear industry must acknowledge that uranium ore is also finite and serves no long term purpose for humanity beyond the next generation or so and scientifically, that purpose is seriously flawed.
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 23 June 2007 4:46:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie,

The release of radioactivity from power reactors is miniscule. Doses to individuals are too low to measure and are a small fraction of natural background radioactivity.

Childhood leukaemia is considered to be a “two-hit” sequence of molecular events. First hit in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (AAL) may well be an in utero event. It is not known if this is a genetic, environmental, or random event.

Post natal activity and infection are most likely the causal event for the promotion of the pre leukaemic clone. Greaves has argued that exposure to infection in early life is necessary for the subsequent proper working of the immune system. While Kinlen has presented evidence that leukaemic clusters are result of a non specific infection. Probably a virus, herpes virus and EBV are possible candidates.

The Comare 10th report of 2006, from table 2.1: 25km radius from Chapelcross; data was obtained from 33 wards; observed cases 24, expected cases 29.83, standardised incidence ratio 0.805.

Comare 11th report confirms that AAL occurs in clusters through out UK. Pattern is non random. However, the pattern DOES NOT show increased rate of clustering near nuclear installations.

Lastly, I will observe that Christopher Busby is best known as an anti nuclear advocate associated with, “The Low Level Radiation Campaign” and publications from “Green Audit.” He is not noted for his skill as an unbiased epidemiological scientist. The report in the HERALD of July23rd may well have great appeal to conspiracy theorists. The problem for the antinuclear advocates is to explain why their theories of disease causation are at variance with the great bulk of medical and scientific literature
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 23 June 2007 9:52:28 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
Anti-green

COMARE's credibility has often been questioned with their methodology in assessing the public health risks to radiation exposure.

There is no consensus on the latest fad by some scientists that leukemias are a result of "post natal activity or infections." Many of us are aware that radiation exposure is responsible for accumulated cell damage which compromises the immune system.

Professor Sir Richard Doll, described by some as an "eminent cancer specialist" quickly changed his mind on the low-level radiation theory he earlier expounded, when his committees were funded to the tune of some 3 million pounds by the BNFL, UKAEA and CEGB.

The good professor even testified against leukemia victims. However, BNFL has paid out millions of pounds in compensation for workers who succumbed to leukemia and other related cancers. Why?

Kofi Annan stated that victims of Chernobyl are still suffering and 3 million children require treatment and many will die.

WHO, in April 2000, confirmed that 50,000 new thyroid cancers, among children living near Chernobyl, have emerged and the worst is still to come for more than 7 million people.

Dr Yaroshinskaya, who lived 60 kilometres from Chernobyl at the time of the explosion, chaired the Chernobyl Investigations. She subsequently wrote a book "The Forbidden Truth" exposing the devastating impacts on the European and global communities resulting from the Chernobyl fall-out.

During Gorbachev's reign, she was forbidden to publish her findings on the massive deaths and morbidities. www.eurozine.com/articles/2006-04-21-yaroshinskaya-en.html

It is of some interest that Gorbachev is now totally opposed to nuclear power.

Joseph K Gong, Associate Professor Emeritus of Oral Diagnostic Sciences and Chair of the University of Buffalo's Radioisotope Safety Committee, is one of the few scientists who has, for some 20 years, extensively studied the impacts of low-level radiation on human health.

Christopher Busby is well qualified to advance his theories on LL radiation and is not financially propped up by the big end of town. You say his views are in contradiction to the "great bulk of medical and scientific literature."

I would be pleased if you could substantiate that claim without bias.
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 24 June 2007 1:42:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I want to take up each issue:

#Life span of nuclear plants. Myth: they last 40 years. Facts: more like 60. Every nuclear plant that has been running for 40 years in the US that has applied for a renewal has received them. ALL new Generation III plants: 60yr plants, at least! So:, nonsense about "limited" life span. Contrast this with expected wind turbines (10 to 15 years) and solar (20 years). The longest is hydro: over 100 years for a hydro plant.

#Proliferation. Myth: nuclear energy propagates nuclear weapons. Facts: you don't need nuclear power plants to produce nuclear weapons. Most military applications of uranium come from specific *military* designed nuclear plants for the purpose of weaponizing the plutonium. It is ALL A QUESTION OF POLICY. Building a nuclear power plant and keeping the plutonium from becoming weaponized is a policy disission ONLY. That's it.

#Waste. Myth: cannot get rid of the waste. Fact: wrong. It can and has been 'gotten rid of' by reprocessing and through half-life mitigation. 99% of the waste now is no longer even that radiactive. The most highly radioactive materials have become much less so and so less dangerous. The fuel can be reprocessed with so little left over that the volume would fit neatly into a few containers on a cargo ship. In the US there is 69,000 tons of spent fuel rods. The whole think would fit onto an Aussie football field about 2 meters thick! That's IT. There is not waste problem, it's only waste management and it's been managed EVERYWHERE very nicely thank you. The waste can sit on those onsite pools for ever, basically (after 20 years they are much less dangerous anyway) or they can be reprocessed. The anti-nuclear lobby has NO SOLUTION to the waste issue they argue is a problem. The refuse to propose *anything* because they know any solution only makes nuclear energy more attractive. Hypocrites!

#Fuel. Myth: There is not enough uranium, blah, blah. This has been dealt with and dispensed with so many times I'm not going to take it up.


David Walters
Posted by Left Atomics, Sunday, 24 June 2007 1:55:55 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
I don't agree that keeping the plutonium from becoming weaponized is purely a matter of policy. Once the uranium it forms in has undergone a high burnup, so has it. This makes it no longer weapons-grade, and there's really no way to reverse that. If wooden clubs and spears had to be fire-treated, their conversion, by too much fire-treating, to ash and gas would represent a similarly irreversible deweaponization.

Thus, the tens of thousands of tonnes of spent fuel from commercial power reactors are generally believed to be no proliferation threat, and the countries such spent-fuel caches are in -- about 33, as I recall -- outnumber the known and suspected nuclear weapons-possessing states, and do not include all of those states.

If small low-temperature reactors with no attached heat engines nor dynamos were harder to build and less numerous than commercial power reactors, and the reactor-bypassing Hiroshima method did not exist, then some proliferator at some time might have had to fall back on the not-bomb-grade plutonium in spent commercial power reactor fuel, or surreptitious limiting of some fuel to low burnup. Since small low-temperature reactors without attached power conversion equipment are in fact more numerous, easier to build, and easier to conceal, this seems unlikely and there is no known precedent.

Hey wait a minute, he's saying Nagasaki-style bombs can come from small concealed non-power reactors. We can't accept that unless he points to some such reactors! Hah!
Posted by GRLCowan, Sunday, 24 June 2007 8:33:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I came across low radiation studies, and although an issue was still unclear, a convictional wisdom is that low radiation levels are positively critical to a human development and well being.

Chapelcross was substantially demolished in May. Perhaps, oncoming few years will reflect changes occurred if any link existed.
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 25 June 2007 1:27:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is genuine science on the long-term low-level radiation question. Antinukes never cite it because they know truth is not their friend. See http://www.radscihealth.org/RSH/ or look up the work of Rosalyn Yalow.

Multiple independent studies show that big geographic variations in natural background radiation levels, big enough that a low-background county could not be brought up to the level of its high-background neighbour even if a thousand nuclear power plants were built in it, make no public health difference. Not in humans, not in animals, not in latecomers, not in populations that go back generations.
Posted by GRLCowan, Monday, 25 June 2007 6:35:29 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
Troublemaker Nuclear energy requires the creation of more greenhouse gas than is saved in the short power stations life time. Beyond that a nuclear powerstation is a white elephant consuming national income for no reason other than stopping people from being killed by it as it falls apart. Uranium resources have past their peak , to switch to nuclear power now would be economically and technologically incompetent on our behalf.

Nuclear power has no environmental benifit at all, no economic benefit at all to a nation. Only the owners of a nuclear powerstation benifit if they recieve welfare/subsidies from the public. Most of those beneficiaries are over 50 and will be dead before most of the burden of the harm they caused destroys Australian life.

Howard himself can flippantly decide his government support such a dinosaur industry because as an elderly man he has a slim chance to live so old to see the damage he has created to the environment , to the economy and to the Australian people beyond 15 years or so.

The bottom line concerning your post is there is no technology that is 100% fool proof.Even tighly controlled nuclear industries such as in Scandenavia and Japan have had problems with accidents and record keeping and the reporting of accidents. What nuclear companies claim is irrelevant to any debate , especially American based companies as there is a strong culture of lobby in the U.S.

Meanwhile alternative energies are creeping in and slowly gaining momentum to eventually compete with coal , nuclear has been exposed as a dud.
Posted by West, Monday, 25 June 2007 10:44:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GRLCowan,
the site you recommended, refers to the use of very low level radiation for health benefits in the treatment of illness. it has no bearing whatever on the collapse of a nuclear power plant in the event of an earthquake, bomb.... etc. nor is it referring to the possibility of nuclear storage dumps being damaged, the containers breached and the radioactive contents leaching into groundwater...
Read West's post. try to think clearly about what you are promoting, and ask yourself if you would like to live in the vicinity of either a radiation waste dump or a power plant and answer yourself honestly. Millions of people are going to be living next to them if you have your way. What would you honestly prefer -- a solar panel or a nuclear reactor on your roof? Think long and hard about that.
Posted by ybgirp, Monday, 25 June 2007 10:59:44 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
re
"See http://www.radscihealth.org/RSH/ or look up the work of Rosalyn Yalow.

Hormesis and radiation phobia are ideas which find far more support in among proponents of nuclear electricity than among health physicists. It always amuses me how these novel ideas garner such wide publicity among the people who turn a blind eye to more practical ideas about alternative proposals for non-nuclear electricity.

As for the quality of the argument at the website listed above, decide for yourself:

"Government agencies suppress data, including radiation hormesis, and foster radiation fear. They support extreme, costly, radiation protection policies; and preclude using low-dose radiation for health and medical benefits that apply hormesis, in favor of using (more profitable) drugs."

And I wonder how anyone can argue in favour of hormesis on the basis of this statement:
"Multiple independent studies show that big geographic variations in natural background radiation levels ... make no public health difference. Not in humans, not in animals, not in latecomers, not in populations that go back generations."

No difference means neither positive nor negative difference. Thus no difference implies no hormesis.

I would be interested in GRL Cowan's opinion on how much radiation is realeased into the environment, annually, by nuclear electricity generation in the USA, and the proportions of each category of release that he (or she) identifies.

My own preference is, of course, to benefit from electricity and other energy technologies which do not carry the risk of nuclear proliferation and sabotage. If hormesis were an accepted biological mechanism in humans, which it is not, I would not care to balance its touted benefits with the impact of direct radiation and fallout from a nuclear accident or intentional explosion.

The Ranger Uranium Inquiry concluded, in the 1970's that the nuclear fuel cycle increases the risk of nuclear war. Who can go beyond dogma and delusion to credibly demonstrate that we in Australia decrease that risk, by mining uranium or by involving ourselves further in the nuclear fuel cycle, for the sake of highly centralised, vulnerable, politically dubious and capital-intensive nuclear electricity generating stations?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Monday, 25 June 2007 11:20:30 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
The International Atomic Energy Agency's Criteria for Statistics for People Exposed to Radiation:

1. If a radiation-caused cancer is not fatal it is not counted

2. If a cancer is triggered by another carcinogen, but accelerated by exposure to radiation, it is not counted

3. Auto-immune diseases or any non-cancer, caused by radiation exposure, is not counted

4. Radiation-damaged embryos or foetuses, which result in miscarriages do not count

5. A congentially blind, deaf or malformed child whose illnesses are radiation related are not included in figures because this is not "genetic damage" but rather teratogenic

6. Radiation, causing the genetic predisposition to breast cancer or heart disease, does not count since it is not a serious genetic disease in the Mendelian sense.

7. Even if radiation causes a fatal or serious genetic disease in a live born infant it does not count.

8. Lung cancer in the occupational health of workers does not count if the victim smoked.

It appears that if all else fails, it is possible to claim the radiation dose below some designated dose does not cause cancer.

This was a technique used to dismiss the sickness of the Gulf war veterans who inhaled small particles of ceramic uranium which stayed in the lungs for two years and the body for 8 years, irradiating and damaging cells in a particular part of the body.

France and Russia are losing foreign customers due to the high cost of reprocessing. The UK, Russia and Japan are unable to recycle their separated plutonium of some 250 tons - sufficient to build some 30,000 nuclear warheads.

The $58 billion Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, which has a capacity to inter 77,000 tons of waste, is already inadequate and will not have the capacity to take all the current stored waste around the country. Its many stuff-ups will not see it operating until 2017 (doubtful), with 2,000 tons of additional waste accumulating each year.

Dwight Eisenhower is credited with stating:

"If a problem cannot be solved, enlarge it."

This appears appropriate advice for the nuclear apologists!
Posted by dickie, Monday, 25 June 2007 1:44:49 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
Recent postings reflect the difficulty of consistently observing adverse radiation effects at low doses say below an annual exposure of 50-100 mSv.

This is because potential effects are small and below the detectable levels by epidemiological methods. Very large samples are required to detect small risks. According to BEIR V for a single exposure of 100 mSv (10 rad) a case control study would require about 120,000 cases and 120,000 controls.

The methodology of the Oxford Survey initiated by Alice Stewart which reported an increased rate of childhood leukaemia following x-ray examination in pregnancy is seriously criticised in ICRP 90.

From the point of view of administration of a radiation protection service a model based on the linear extrapolation of dose down to the lowest possible level is used.

This does not mean that the literature on hormesis, apoptosis, immune surveillance, bystander effects, DNA repair (single and double strand brakes), genomic instability etc is invalid. However, from the point of view of administration the uncertainties and variability between subjects and tissues within subjects is of too great a complexity to allow incorporation in an administrative model.

The linear model is unfortunately abused by the anti-nuclear community. For this reason ICRP has suggested dose constrains such as 0.01 mSv per year no action. 1 mSv per year for situations were there is societal benefit but without individual benefit.

The other problem is the using of ICRP nominal dose coefficients to predict cancer incidence in irradiated populations. The widely divergent estimates following Chernobyl should suggest that these estimates are very “rubbery.” The best estimate is from Elizabeth Cardis and quoted in the Chernobyl Forum papers. The only valid conclusion that I can make is that the existing level of oncological services in Western Europe is more then adequate to cope with any possible theoretical increase in cases. Any excess cancer burden will be so small, that even if it occurs, it will never be detected.

I will in a later post discuss the question of “evidence” in science.
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 25 June 2007 2:56:05 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
To dickie,

Get a life ! !

go to www.allpowermustbenuclear.com
or www.nucleargreen.org

No slogans...just the truth!

Ralph
The TroubleMaker
Posted by Troublemaker, Monday, 25 June 2007 3:06:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GRLCowan

Without your so-called "dud" the world will one day cease to exist. The ONLY way to end and reverse global warming is with nuclear power. Nothing else can possibly succeed. Windmills, solar panels and vegetable fuels are simply very bad jokes...and pose a danger because they temporarily divert attention away from the problem and the solution.

Nuclear will not only solve our global warming problem, it will also stop starvation in the world with massive nuclear desalinization. It will also replace gasoline or any other fuel with "nuclear hydrogen." Go to my website for an explanation.

Either www.allpowermustbenuclear.com or www.nucleargreen.org.

Ralph
Posted by Troublemaker, Monday, 25 June 2007 3:21:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is Evidence? What is a Cause?

The philosopher David Hume in the eighteenth century addressed this problem. To Hume a cause and effect relationship was derived from observation-a constant conjunction in experience. In to-days parlance this is called a “correlation,” Hume therefore, is regarding the problem of causation as a subset of knowledge by induction.

In the nineteenth century with the development of bacteriology the problem in the heath sciences became acute. The famous Koch postulates for associating a biological agent with disease have since been modified.

In 1957 Hill suggested 9 criteria that can be applied1,2. I list the criteria as follows*: strength of association; consistence and repeatability of the observation; specificity of the observation; temporality; biological gradient; plausibility; coherence; experiment; analogy. The Hill criteria are not to be used as a “check list” but applied with care and scientific judgment. This allows for variability in opinion.

My reference to reports from the Committee on Medical aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) has been criticized by Dickie. A glance at membership of COMARE should show that the individuals are well qualified, have senior posts and years of experience in their respective disciplines.

Further COMARE is roughly consistent with other bodies such as ICRP, BEIR, WHO, UNSCEAR and so on. Further all these reports provide copious references to the published, open, peer reviewed scientific literature.

The complaint that governments are deliberately holding back data that is already in the public domain is absurd. To argue otherwise is to join the ranks of conspiracy theorists.

It is my firm opinion that in general the writings of the anti nuclear authors do not meet the criteria of “proper scientific evidence. “ Or else there is an overwhelming body of evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

1. Hill AB. Proc Royal Soc Med 1965; 58:295-300.
2.Rothman KJ and Greenlander S. Modern Epidemiology. Lippincott-Raven 1998.

* Regrettably space does not allow me to elaborate on the criteria
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 25 June 2007 4:09:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Troublemaker (aka Ralph Andrews - President of Nuclear Green inc.)

This is a pretty pathetic attempt on your part to promote your own book which you have advertised for free on most of your posts on OLO.

In addition, the address you recommend, www.allpowermustbenuclear.com is fake or you are playing games, or you do not have the ability to advise the correct web address.

Are you the same Ralph Andrews noted for his host role in the 70's game show?

And you, are now the guru on all things nuclear?

On your website, you appear to be accusing nuclear opponents of "lies, deception and scare tactics." I suggest, for the sake of your credibility, you substantiate those claims.

I also suggest that the game is over for you, Ralph and it is you who needs to "get a life!"

Either address the scientific issues that have been raised in these posts, or promote your book the normal way - paid advertising!
Posted by dickie, Monday, 25 June 2007 4:13:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Troublemaker

"Windmills, solar panels and vegetable fuels are simply very bad jokes...and pose a danger because they temporarily divert attention away from the problem and the solution."

Really? Perhaps you could provide more specific criticism. Solar thermal power could readily meet Australia's needs. Whether this can be done economically could be known in a few years. There is also ample biomass to meet Australia's liquid fuel needs. Recent research has found an alternative to fermentation which chemically (read "quickly") produces a hydrophobic fuel with a similar energy density to gasoline.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i26/8526notw1.html

This fuel could be blended with gasoline on a commercial in as little as two years.
Posted by Fester, Monday, 25 June 2007 5:52:16 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
Can one breathe money instead the air? If even Parker or alike, of the inherited?

What a sort of “economic sustainability” matters if a very human existence is questionable as fossil sources are being vanishing already?

Could, please, someone delighted here explaine.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 26 June 2007 12:13:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti-green - you state:

1. "The complaint that governments are deliberately holding back data that is already in the public domain is absurd. To argue otherwise is to join the ranks of conspiracy theorists."

You no doubt are alluding to my earlier claim regarding freedom of information documents on leukaemia statistics where these documents are being witheld by the UK government, despite court orders.

Can you support your above claim? No, I didn't think so. All this idle chattering about "conspiracy theorists" simply reveals you are not able to substantiate your overblown rhetoric.

2. The operator of the nuclear reprocessing plant Sellafield, in the UK, has pleaded guilty and fined five hundred thousand pounds for allowing the escape of 83,000 litres of acid, 20 tonnes of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium.

Gee, that must have been during the Chernobyl era? Modern technology doesn't allow for those stuff-ups in the developed world -does it?

I'm afraid so. That Sellafield prosecution occurred in October 2006.

3. Eminent nuclear chemist and cardiologist, John W Gofman, then Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California said in his paper titled "Radiation Induced Cancers from Low-dose Exposure:"

"By any reasonable standard of biomedical proof, there is no safe dose which means that just one decaying radioactive atom can produce permanent mutation in a cell's genetic molecules.

"The fact that humans cannot escape exposure to ionizing radiation from natural background sources is no reason to let human activities increase exposure to ion radiation."

"Conspiracy" theories on my part, Anti-green?

The conspiracies, dogma and delusions are, I'm afraid, all entrenched in the pro-nukes constant web of misinformation of which you are a member.
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 26 June 2007 4:53:12 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
This will be my last post on the subject of nuclear power. It didn't take me long to realize that many people are simply abusing the forum to spew a lot of unsupported positions and too often some rather venomous comments.

If any of you would be interested in having a lively but courteous and dignified discussion on the subject, I suggest we do it by email. If this interests you, my email address is quite simple: ralph@nucleargreen.org. This subject is far too important to me to see it reduced to name-calling and insults.

I'll look forward to hearing from any of you who are willing to agree or disagree as gentlemen (and ladies)

Ralph Andrews
Posted by Troublemaker, Tuesday, 26 June 2007 5:32:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ralph Andrews,

I would still like to know why you still think geothermal power and solar-thermal power are exhaustible forms of energy, “band-aids” you say.

Please have the decency to reply before you take the ball home.

Will say it again -

I for one would like to see a mix of energy supplies, nuclear power is ok in some countries, and the technology for its safe use will only get better.

However, WE DO NOT NEED NUCLEAR POWER IN AUSTRALIA YET and probably won’t for a long time to come – for the many reasons alluded to in previous posts and contrary to what many in the nuclear lobby (including Ralph Andrews) suggest.
Posted by davsab, Tuesday, 26 June 2007 5:57:36 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
Ralph

Your views are appreciated.

Please stick at it, and just ignore those who can’t tolerate the views of those with whom they disagree without being offensive.

It is much better that your views be presented on this forum where they can be read by hundreds of people than be confined to one-on-one email exchanges.

I don’t agree that nuclear power is our saviour. But I do want to hear the sorts of views that you presenting.

Cheers
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 26 June 2007 7:55:37 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
Ralf “Troublemaker” Andrews,

This is my last post in this topic either, not because I am pro-green and surprised with opposition to further exporting Australian-produced pollution but using own nuke resources locally, quite opposite: majority of disputants have only emotions expressed, while as usual in Australia, being very short of a factual, engineering especially, approach to the issues.

Thank you for your e-address, maybe, one day
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 27 June 2007 2:35:55 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
Ralf “Troublemaker” Andrews,

This is my last post in this topic either, not because I am pro-green and surprised with opposition to further exporting Australian-produced pollution but using own nuke resources locally, quite opposite: majority of disputants have only emotions expressed, while as usual in Australia, being very short of a factual, engineering especially, approach to the issues.

Thank you for your e-address, maybe, one day.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 27 June 2007 2:36:09 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
Troublemaker should take the trouble to have a look at the Australian uranium production figures on UIC's website. Production in 2006 was 20% down on 2005, while in Canada it was down 15%, with only Kazakhstan producing more than the year before. Overall global production was down 5%. Ranger the Australian biggest is due to close in 2008, working out its ore stocks by 2014, but is flooded meanwhile. Olympic Dam underground is failing, dropping around 25% over a year.

To match the loss of the secondary sources from ex-weapons highly enriched uranium under the US-Russia agreement, there needs to be opened new capacity of 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes a year by 2013/14 - no chance of that. Can Troublemaker tell us where it is going to come from, especially if the Olympic Dam expansion is turned down?
Posted by John Busby, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 4:40:25 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
Like daysab, I too am bemused at the notion that solar power is not an inexhaustible source of energy.
This is my last post too. like most of OLO 'discussions' it has deteriorated into combatants firing arguments from entrenched positions... little point. better to write to your MP.
Posted by ybgirp, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 11:06:28 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
Dickie

a) It is your prerogative to hold any opinion that you chose to adopt.

b) You are free to propagate any opinion that comes into your mind. You are also free to quote any number of pseudo authorities and individuals. [People that have no standing in the wider scientific community].

c) Please forgive me, for profoundly disagreeing with your misguided posts.

d) This is my last response to your messages. This thread is becoming more and more tedious
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 11:15:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ybgirp/Ludwig

It appears the combatants have resigned their posts anyway.

I refer to the unprovoked attack from Troublemaker where he told me to "get a life."

Anti-green refers to those who are anti-nuclear as "Conspiracy theorists" despite those posters raising issues which can be easily supported by documentary evidence.
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 11:44:38 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
Another problem with nuclear as a magical panacea to global warming. The public resources and sacrifices required to develop nuclear energy exclude more appropriate forms of energy. One of the worst things is that public investment would be consumed by large corporations at the detriment of diversity and smaller energy businesses. More appropriate energy infrastructure will not be developed and so will undermine this country when the nuclear energy industry inevitably collapses.

Alternative energy industries such as wind and solar, tide and wave generation do not require large companies to supply energy. Owner generation is the only long term sustainable possibility. All of these will be destroyed by heavily subsidised nuclear energy effectively creating energy monopolies as we see today.

Hydro , thermal, tide, wave and wind power generation have to be intergrated with catchment, coastal or local environmental management. Such management in Australia integrates stakeholder imput with public management. Environmental management is impossible with nuclear energy as the area of degradation is on a severely large scale and risk centres are diversified to include transport routes and waste depots. With this aspect along with security issues stakeholders have no imput in the environmental management of the land (and sea) affected by the plant and yet stakeholders are forced take on all the risk. Nuclear poses a disaster risk for governance and democracy.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 1:12:08 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
A shame that so many are dipping out, citing other's poor level of response (a descent into Dogma and Delusion?) as a justification.

Perhaps I shall be able to give the last word on nuclear power and international diplomacy to Professor Richard Broinowski, who spoke at the SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE FOR AN INQUIRY INTO THE CONTRACT FOR A NEW REACTOR AT LUCAS HEIGHTS on FRIDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2000, in Canberra. His humble self-introduction to that august body was as follows:

"Prof. Broinowski ... I am an honorary professor—that means they do not pay me—at the University of Canberra, and a diplomat of 34 years experience. During my various postings I have analysed the nuclear programs of the countries to which I have been accredited."

He continued:

"Since retiring from DFAT in May 1997, I have maintained my interest in nuclear matters and I have followed the debate about whether Australia needs a new research reactor at Lucas Heights.

"I do not support its construction, mainly because it has the potential to encourage rather than inhibit the proliferation of nuclear technology in the region, technology which is always capable of dual use: for peaceful purposes and to make weapons.

"I rather surprised myself about this conclusion I have drawn, because I have always been in favour of Australia having state-of-the-art defence equipment."

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s4366.pdf
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 1:33:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

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