"Pebbles are safe."

Well Kaep, these "safe pebbles" have seen the National Nuclear Regulator in Sth Africa slamming the brakes on Eskom's PBMR at Koeberg. The suspension occurred last October and remains in force due to the advanced fuel behaviour and the safety criteria.

Eskom failed to disclose the order to stop work!

I have not yet learnt of any breakthroughs to prevent faulty pebbles slipping into and jamming the operations. The graphic moderator in pebbles could also be a fire hazard which has the potential for a catastrophic release of radiation.

The PBR requires some 360,000 uranium fueled pebbles where the used pebbles must remain on-site for the life of the plant. Surely, almost everyone would regard this as a high volume of waste? And how much CO2 will be produced in the manufacturing of billions of pebbles, should this technology take off?

Was it you who recommended dumping the fuel depleted pebbles in our oceans?

The up-side is that a PBMR could be completed and operational in a 3 year time span. However, these reactors require far fewer staff than conventional reactors, therefore, there isn't much in it as far as jobs are concerned.

Estimates for a 10 modular pebble bed reactor is purported to be some $2.3 billion - of course no containment building is required with pebble bed modular reactors.

Currently in the US, ageing reactors which should have been decommissioned after a forty year life span, are now being relicensed for a 60 year life span.

According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, twenty American states have requested stocks of potassium iodide which the NRC suggests should be available for those living within 10 miles of nuclear reactor plants, in the event of a severe accident.

So while this industry are frothing away at the new pebble bed reactors, conveniently forgetting that uranium is finite, they and the relevant agencies will have to be responsible for some 441 obsolete and ageing reactors (and repositories), where the deteriorating conditions of these reactors will put the inhabitants on this planet at serious risk.

Nuclear junkies: Recidivist, environmental vandals!

.
..To Dickie
on the ground of a distinction between operators and proponents , yep sure ,your opinion require a different answers
I took it as the global community of advocates of nuclear power ,
Still , I'm not sure that this thread proponents are particularly blind to the dangers of the atom ,
they usually argue that the risks are much less that the hyperbolic claims of doom usually advanced by
the opponents .
I would like you to acknowledge the tens of thousands of coal miners killed down the years
and the hundred of thousands of live blighted to provide power to the rest of us ,
the petrol industry also has some streaks of red in it's oil .
so far , for the total amount of energy generated the human price of nuclear is not disgraceful

.. to Bronco lane
your quote
" A lot of your thread appears cryptic and needs clarity"
It was an answers to some of the points you raised on your previous post , it goes a quote "..." an answers
try reading it again alongside to your post , if it still doesn't make sense , I'll try to be simpler for you
your quote
" Unfortunately you do not answer regarding the many deaths and mutations from Nuclear Power and Uranium Mining"
perfectly correct , I try not to answers unsubstantiated allegations"
your quote
"We do not believe in putting electricity underground do we ? No it is cheaper to lay it on top of telegraph poles isn't it for everybody to look at"
That is correct ,it is much cheaper I would myself rather see in buried in cities , much more aesthetic
your quote
"We do not have children suffering from various cancers at Princess Margaret Hospital do we. "
yes we do , what is your point ?
let me guess it must be a cryptic allusion to alleged links between high voltage power distribution and children leukemia
sorry you are swerving off thread

Dear Randwick
The point is Nuclear Power is not safe because even with straight forward current power utility we still have human and technical error and overhead electric causes cancer doesn't it.
With Japan the error of placing Nuclear Power within known earthquake and volcanic regions, even the Japanese are not as clever as we believe they are, another human error placing life in peril. Profiteers will always take this risk knowing full well it is all a threat to life. How can all of this be condoned ?

If PBRs not on ... its not on.

Nuclear power is like sex. Both are essential to our well being and to our future. Both have dangers from lingering illnesses they can cause. But per capita, per killiowatt expended energy, diseases like AIDS and HepC and competetive violence associated with sex are millions of times more prevalent than any illness or injury nuclear reactors can inflict. Further, additional research will make PBR safer. I submit that sex will NEVER get any safer.

So given his frail logic, why doesn't Dickie call for ban on sex and NOT PBR nuclear power? I suggest that its because 'he's-alright-mate' and he doesn't give a damn about our future or anyone other than himself for that matter.

Additionally Dickie's remarks on PBR are misleading. The Wiki article gives full details of small PBR reactors. It presents the pros and cons with a bright hope for PBRs future given the ramping up of research efforts because of the threats associated with PeakOil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

His demonisation of dumping PBR pebbles in deep sea subduction zones is equally pathetic. Why? Because deep sea trenches collect all heavy radionuclides off the planet's surface anyway. Its a process called Gravity. What happens to those heavy nuclides in deep sea trenches is they get forced by deep sea pressure into sediments and later into the Earth's crust and melted as recycled magma. This process has been going on for 4.5 billion years and any pebbles at those depths are under such pressures that they cannot float away, leak or do anything other than get SUBDUCTED into the Earth from whence they came.

All Dickie ever does is present the cons of nuclear power and that is incredibly biased given all the information he needs to consider. For any fair minded individual dickie's viewpoint is simply a con.

Continued..

continuing..

And lastly, it is not enough for Australian's to accept and embrace an imminent nuclear future. We have to learn the technologies and PARTICIPATE. Why? Because something this important to our future cannot be trusted to the Mr MacBurns of our corrupted private enterprise culture. Public Private Enterprise ventures are alright for roads because we can always get a political reversal of unjust funnel tunnel strictures. No such political backflips will be forthcoming if PPPs get hold of nuclear industries. As a preeminent future energy stock, nuclear will be as powerful and as unaccountable as the current oil giants. For similar reasons to why Telstra should never have been sold off, nuclear should NEVER be sold off by any government no matter what mandate they think they have.

And remember. If PBRs not on ... its NOT ON.

"I would like you to acknowledge the tens of thousands of coal miners killed down the years."

Indeed I do, Randwick, as would Bronco Lane. Suggestion: Never believe government statistics. There have been HUNDREDS of thousands of coal miners killed between the 18th and 21st century.

Have you ever witnessed a loved one dying slowly from silicosis, a disease the goldminers contracted? The delay by governments and industry to protect workers from this terrible disease and the reluctance to compensate those on their death beds remains a vivid memory.

This disgrace was similar to those inflicted with asbestos related diseases, where governments and industry were well aware they were exposing workers to fatal diseases and remained silent until they were dragged kicking and screaming into the open.

Back to the topic. Only the IAEA did the statistics on the Chernobyl disaster. The agreement they had with WHO clearly contained a conflict of interest where, due to the agreement, were able to gag Director General of WHO Dr Hiroshi Nakajime and command WHO on the information they were permitted to release.

Dr Nakajime tried to inform on Chernobyl by organising in Geneva, an international conference with 700 experts and physicians. The IAEA blocked the proceedings which were never published.

The truth and consequences of Chernobyl would have been a disaster for the promotion of the atomic industry.

Are you requesting the general public place their trust in this industry?

I recommend you google www10.antenna.nl/wise/chernobyl/atomic_lies, to better understand how the nuclear industry deceives the public.

Atomic Lies is a documentary exposing the nuclear industry. Should you dispute the findings, I must ask you to explain why the IAEA have not brought a lawsuit against the "liars" which include highly regarded experts on the long-term and agonising effects of radiation.

Please advise, with the advent of thousands of pebble bed reactors, how long you believe uranium supplies will last? Daily replacement of U. depleted pebbles will require an ongoing supply, despite the more frugal use of uranium with this technology.

Perhaps you are only concerned with your own lifetime on this planet?