Atom1

Alternatives also use up fossil fuels in manufacture. And they need periodic replacement just like any other machines. And 36% of global GHG emissions is a huge percentage, and is likely to grow. Stop being so fixated against the nuclear industry. The anti nuclear lobby is becoming so set in its views and so selective in its reading.

Energy saving I deeply regret is not popular and most people won't comply. I do but I am in a a minority. And alternatives are just not as simple or productive as non engineers think.

.

Hi all ,

Atom1...
" and India may have investigated the military use of Thorium/Uranium-233 in addition to its civil applications."
You are right as usual on the thorium use and capabilities but my point was that India with plentiful ressouces of the stuff couldn't use it in it's reactors ,I don't know why !
the recently signed India /USA nuclear agreement is going to be interesting to follows , a meeting of the nuclear suppliers countries ( the real muscle of the NPT )is scheduled to meet soon ,
my money is on a blessing to Canada and Australia amongst others ,to sell yellow cake to India

to all ...
What have sea vessels do with a debate on nuclear electricity stations?"

Everything , the Pressurized Water Reactors were developed by Westinghouse to power strategic missiles submarines of the U S Navy
they were not the most efficient but their design was the most rugged ,compact and trouble free .
using them at sea with an abundance of cooling water around was just peachy
This type was a success ,with good operation record , it got used on board aircraft carriers too ,
Westinghouse used this basic proven design to sell nuclear power plants ,
the Electricitee de France , the French power authority there had experimented with graphite/gas at their st laurent site but bought the Westinghouse design finaly , as this was the most reliable with plenty of operational data .

the report of incidents in a nuclear power plant is a very good thing
there is a ratio of trivial incidents to serious to catastrophic
having no trivial one mean that someone is lying , but by the same token , don't jump up and down when there is minor events it make the operators clam up , hide stuff or under report it.

.

Logic, the emissions and fossil fuel costs for renewables & energy efficiency is negligble or zero, and with an energy payback time for wind (yes, only part of a solution) being just months, compared with "10-15 yrs" for 1 nuclear plant (Ziggy's government report) PLUS a further 10+ yrs to recoup its energy costs.

Solar sliver cells: "The cost of solar is measured in the number of years of free electricity you need to pay off the installation. Today it’s about 20. With mass-produced sliver cells it could be just 5 to 7 years. Another advantage they have is, if they’re partially shaded they still produce power. Unlike conventional panels which shut down with even with a little shade covering them." - ABC's Catalyst 8/3/07.

Randwick, thanks for bringing the issue back to its inherent military links, which, along with the mining market, actually drives the industry rather than any nuclear energy "need", let alone viability.

The fact remains, even if not for nuclear's massive water use, energy costs (especially U enrichment - also a major CFC source in the USA), time scale, wastes, safety, WMDs and terrorism risks, nuclear still merely attempts to address 36% of the sources of global human-induced greenhouse gases.

See also 'Climate of Hope':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_NLdRUELjo

So what? The majority of Australians can hardly calculate an elementary without calculator-and only 0.4% students graduate as qualified mathematicians in comparison with 1% of others “first world”'s graduates. Surely it is a clear explanation to ATOM1’s spell:
“Michael K, the (majority of Australians) opposed to the nuclear industry are far from "rejecting progress in general" when Australia could become a world leader in sustainable renewable energies- now the fastest growing of all energy industries and worth $54 billion annually.”

Nothing is absolute and a nuke power cannot be realistically 100%-green-process. However, one must be too narrowminded if not understanding, that some decisions based on a no-choice situation where exhausting of coal and oil are in a visible proximity.

Dickie wrote

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

Firstly: The word “lying” is being used too freely.

Secondly: I profoundly disagree with Dickie. I have provided in previous posts a plethora of references. Further the majority of my references are from the published, peer reviewed scientific or medical literature. On the other hand the so called anti-nuclear experts rarely have the respect of their peers.

Thirdly I remind Dickie and others of the world wide growth in the Nuclear Industries. I suspect should a Labour government be returned at the next election the process towards an Australian nuclear industry will only be delayed. Likewise the newly formes “ANTI_NUCLEAR ALLIANCE,” will be only a minor nuisance,

A FEW FACTS:
Today there are 437 power reactors in 30countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 370 GWe . In 2006 these machines provided 2658 GWh of electricity.

About 30 power reactors are under construction in 11 countries. For instance Kazakhstan is building a 300 MWe plant of Russian design. In all over 70 reactors are planned with a total net capacity of over 80 TWe and further another 150 or more are proposed.

In the USA Most plants were designed for a 40 y life. Recently some 50 US plants have been granted licence to extend the life time to 60 years. In Japan plant lifetimes of up to 70 years are planned.

Nearly Twenty countries are actively considering embarking upon a nuclear power program. In our geographical area the countries are Bangladesh; Indonesia; Vietnam; Thailand; Malaysia; ? Australia; New Zealand (not at Government level).

Italy currently a non nuclear country has electricity prices 45% above the EU average.

You may also be interested to learn that Sweden and Finland have both indicated a willingness to host waste depositories. France is actively building a deep geological repository. Their waste management program is located at Bure in Eastern France.

My sources are UIC Briefing papers 9, 19, 28,102 and 104.

Anti-green, insofar as lying also means not telling the whole truth then yes, lies abound concerning the Chernobyl disaster and its unknown total death rates - the likes of which cannot be based only on the past as radioactive contamination bioconcentrates in the food chain and the WHO's Chernobyl report excluded the 53% of fallout that landed on Europe and the UK, ignoring also the latent period of cancers, and measurements at the time of the accident were for thyroid cancers (iodine intake) only.

Today, one out of every five Belarussians lives on contaminated land. That's 2.1 million people, of whom 700,000 are children. Because of the virtually permanent presence of small doses of radiation around the "Zone", the number of people with cancer, neurological disorders and genetic mutations increases with each year.

The idea that any nation has an impossible choice between coal or nuclear for its base load power is completely ignorant of the facts. The massive expansion of nuclear power in China only plans to increase it from 4 to 6% of their electricity.

As for "worldwide growth", nuclear remains thwarted by renewables and nuclear remains the most inefficient, wasteful and risky means of boiling water we don't have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeCCBvz_XwA&mode=related&search=