Anti-green

Your ad hominem attack is rather pitiful.

You have now descended to your usual level of tricky tactics by implementing any method that will discredit the opponent.

You have failed to debate any issues I have raised, despite the inclusion of supporting evidence, including officially documented statistics, to substantiate my claims.

Why don't you take up the challenge? Hmmmmmm.....?

Where are the references in your posts to support your rants?

I reiterate that those "scientific experts" you refer to who say that the impact of Chernobyl is somewhat small and ever-diminishing are lying. The public needs to face the issue.

Cornflower

Only yesterday did the media announce that the Department of Environment and Conservation in WA are set to fine the Esperance Port Authority $1 million for contaminating Esperance with lead.

This incompetent department has found a scape-goat in the port and has refused to accept responsibility for knowingly allowing the contamination of eco-systems and human health. The large fine,in a desperate bid to save face, is rare in WA, despite the ongoing pollution and environmental catastrophes!

Atom1,

Sorry I meant neutrons not electrons. The argument that power reactors are not the same as bombs still holds water. I did attend many lectures on nuclear physics and got honours in second year physics.

And please tell me more about the experts you worked with. Exactly what qualifications and what experience.

You criticize the knowledge of an Indian engineer because the plant which he helped to design in your view was not a success. How many nuclear plants have you or your experts designed, and how successful were these?

What have sea vessels do with a debate on nuclear electricity stations?

Cornflower

Why use the derogative term technocrats?

Toxic waste chemical treatment plants have a totally different performance record (and technology) to nuclear power plants.

Dirty bombs are as different to power plants as mining industry explosives are to conventional bombs.

And it is France not the USA which leads in nuclear power. The French have an excellent safety record. Nuclear power is now a mature technology, modern power stations have an excellent record.

MichaelK

A containment vessel is an extremely strong reinforced concrete enclosure which is strong enough to contain a mishap to the reactor inside.

dickie

Entry into the medical faculty only requires year 12 physics. They only do one year more of physics at Uni and unlike engineers and physicists they don't get practical experience in applying the science in their profession.

Yes many engineers have doubts about nuclear safety, I always said I was OPEN MINDED about the subject but wanted INFORMED discussion not fear mongering.

Just as many scientists don't believe that global warming is a problem.

Please tell me how many of you would change your minds if good evidence was available that modern nuclear energy power stations were safe?

.

OHH , let's keep civilised , this is becoming unduly personal

for Atom1

"Randwick, it's disingenuous to attempt to simplify that to be anti-nuclear is to be pro-coal."

no doubts the intentions are otherwise but the net results are plain ,
the coal industry and the Australian government agencies are desperate to protect our most important export ,earning our standard of living by the way ,
what australia burn or not is small beer compared to what we export , the silence of Peter Garrett is proof of his dissembling
the anti nuclear position main weakness is that Australia has the choice , most other countries haven't .

The energy consumption in a country is roughly divided in transport and electricity
for the first one the most efficient by far is hydrocarbons fuels
for the second , while marginal production can be obtain from just about any system , the most efficient base load is coal

of course there is two small problems ,
1.. Co2 production is fantastically high and probably nefarious
2.. we will run out of fossil carbon in less than a generation

this leave the second best option
transportation using Hydrogen , not so good but it can do the job
nuclear plant for base load and hydrogen production

of course there is two small problems

1.. the whole distribution of fuel has to be switched to hydrogen gas ,
no one has much of a clue how to implement it and not be voted out by irate voters

2.. there is not that much of U235 around , the nuclear boiling kettle you are so afraid
are really quite benign compared to what is just over the horizon ..... Fast breeders reactors ,
the Yukkk factor is much higher it's like comparing dope with heroin
once people are used to the pressurized water reactors and their good safety record ,
they will discount all the screaming wolf .
They will not really understand the change

.

Hi

What if we continue to develop thorium as a "green reactor" fuel and then use it to get rid of all the nuclear waste in the world.

As well as provide energy.

I understand that India and Australia have large amounts of Thorium.

Unfortunately this design is not up and running yet.

But we are working on it. :-)

.

Thorium reactors work by changing the thorium into U233 witch is fissionable and O.K.
there is enough of it for a couple centuries on present usage
I's not green and has the same basic drawback as using U235
I.E. Treat it with respect , it's powerful magic , reliable but it do not suffer fools .
the advantage is that there is less plutonium created and the reaction is more stable and simple than fast breeders
However it must be noted that India was desperately short of nuclear fuel , they were under a worldwide ban because they broke the NPT
and they have plenty of thorium , the city of Kerala at 200mSv is one of the most radioactive place on earth ,
Still the Indians couldn't use the Thorium and had to grovel ( successfully )to the U.S. government to get some fuel
thus destroying the last credibility of the NPT

The present ( and next )government will probably disregard any treaty supplying yellow cake to India

.

Logic

The pebble bed modulator reactors do not have a containment building.

From a layman's perspective the PB reactor could be a terrorist's dream come true.

Zero marks to the nuclear scientists who OK'd the construction of a reactor, situated near a seismic fault line in Japan, where the recent earthquake in July resulted in a fire at the reactor and the release of RA water into the ocean. In addition, 100 drums of radioactive material fell over during the earthquake and spilled an "unspecified" amount of the contents. "What......no lids!?"

The plant has suffered years of accident cover-ups and fudged safety records. TEPCO said the earthquake was stronger than the plant was designed for. Operator admitted that more radiation had leaked than was first reported. (Source ABC News)

IAEA advised it could be a year before the plant is operational. Mmmm......so where will they derive their energy from in the meantime?

(ABC News 27/4/05)According to UN figures between 15,000 and 30,000 people exposed to radiation at Chernobyl have died. Is this another stab in the dark!?

Since this thread is about "Australia's nuclear future", I would hasten posters to peruse the contents of a paper written by John Busby. Search words: sandersresearch Busby uranium.

Nuclear proponents could be getting excited about nothing. Busby's account verifies much of what opponents have said in the past about Australia's future uranium supplies.

ABC June '06: The Federal Opposition is demanding the public be told about radiation accidents at facilities operated by ANSTO.

Four contaminations occurred in a week at Lucas Heights and elsewhere.

Accidents in the nuclear industry will occur whether the reactor is "modern" or obsolete. Many of the accidents have had little to do with the operating efficiency of the reactor and often have been a result of human error. These are errors that can't be rectified and the inherent risks to human health and the environment can be catastrophic!

Some European countries remain committed to phasing out their nuclear reactors. It is claimed that Germany already employs 150,000 workers in the renewable energy sector.