Flannery appeared a few hours ago on Democracy Now.

Video and audio available:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/25/1454240

- enjoy! (I think)

What a fatuous beat up masquerading as science based comment. Clearly, most of the water is not lost or used up (ie discharged as steam) when "used". It is merely borrowed for cooling purposes and returned to the place it was drawn from.

Note from the author's quote, "as well as the higher temperature of the water discharged from the power plant, can negatively affect water quality etc."

Consequently, only the relatively small amount of water within the steam cycle needs to be clean. The cooling water can be of lesser quality and be sourced from the existing stocks of disgracefully managed urban waste water, storm water runoff and, wait for it, SEA WATER.

Yes, these clowns are trying to suggest that we have a critical shortage of sea water that will be placed in some sort of jeopardy by the cycling of 50 to 150 megalitres a day through a power plant. The irony is that the more water is fed through the cooling cycle, the lower its temperature will be when discharged. And the lower will be the variance between the temperature of the water source and the temperature of the discharge water.

For the record, 150 megalitres is only one hectare in area and 15 metres deep. So the daily discharge into a coastal current that is only 1km wide, flowing at only 1km/hour and at a depth of only 90 metres, will see the discharge water being diluted by a factor of 14,400 times. That is, it will only amount to 0.00694 of 1% of that volume.

How original, another bull$hit green "scarenario" to feed the bimboscenti. Go on, lap it up you morons, you just love it, don't you.

Surely geothermal power should be regarded as just another form of nuclear power. Those who quibble at this should pause to think where the earth's heat comes from. That's right, nuclear decay in the core.

It is very well for people to advocate wind and solar solutions, but until technology is developed to enable electrical energy to be stored cheaply, neither wind or solar will be a solution overnight.

Now that the world population has reached the level that requires most people to live in large megacities, which cannot survive without large amounts of cheap energy, we seem to be locked into the current arrangements for the forseeable future, global warming or not.

Looks like being a fun century.

Nuclear alarmists will have to find yet another scare tactic to add to the list of fizzers. Sure there is thermal pollution of once-through cooling water, but that's trivial compared to the atmospheric oven we will create by using more coal. Perhaps in some sites it could be used to improve the efficiency of desalination.

I wonder if green utopians realise that steam from hot granite geothermal contains radioactive radon gas. Or that sodium sulphur batteries (to store wind and solar electricity) will require exclusion zones. Go back to your bag of Halloween masks and try find something new to scare us with.

The use of sea water and efficient cooling can significantly reduce the thermal shock of the returning water to the surrounding environment.

The biggest issue is in fact radioactive contamination of the returning water. However the risks associated with this can be significantly reduced by having rigourous safety regimes.

Drought stricken Australia can ill-afford to replace an immigration-water-thirsty Liberal government with an even thirstier Kevin07 one: ZERO IMMIGRATION and a total nuclear power industry are the ONLY way Australia can survive drought and PEAKOIL induced civil collapse as an indivisible nation. At least ubtil GEOTHERMAL power laser-drilling technologies become mature in an estimated 30 years time.

There is no doubt that our drought has been significantly accelerated by immigration and that short term incumbent party political gains, higher GST revenues and a dilution of stable democracy have all been of great benefit to the business and public service industries at the expense of ordinary Australians. Despite Australians having more money in the bank under Howard, their freedoms and rights have been decimated as they must make room for closer and more aggressive government sposored and favoured foreigners.

The truth is that with nuclear industries Australia can enjoy greater economic growth without the drought, climate change, overcrowding, public service(transport,justice,health,police etc) gridlocks and aggression. That this is not widely known is a result of questionnable intellect and a lack of scientific background in our currently largely immigration-gerrymandered and branch-stacked elected governments.

The other truth is that our $currency is effectively locked to dwindling oil supplies and will devalue rapidly once petrol prices creep towards $5/litre. All that money you have in shares and the bank? It will be useless paper and you will still have the angry foreign neigbours and impossible living conditions in all major cities and towns. The federal government will be irrelevant, out-of-control & lacking the fuel resources to substantially exert influence in regional affairs now more influenced by foreign ownership and control.

An additional truth is that yellowcake mining already poses the worst nuclear risks. A well run total-nuclear industry that has leading research facilities will actually reduce the current risks.

Australia Must stop immigration, go total-nuclear-industries, invest in geothermal drilling technology and gradually realise a nation of QUALITY and not quantity is the best management practice(BMP) for Australia in an overcrowded world teetering on the brink.

The reason that some nuclear power plants in Europe have had to be run at reduced capacity is that the ambient temperature is higher than they were designed for and/or rainfall lower than expected. Assuming that this is due to global warming, and that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions, it can be seen that had more nuclear power generators been built in the past, instead of coal fired generators, the problem would have been lessened. And where was the opposition to nuclear power coming from in the past? Oh, yes, I remember.

Sylvia.

Nuclear fuelled electricity generation is different from coal fuelled electricity generation in one important way. The cost of coal delivered to the power station has a major freight component - this is why in Australia the majority of our coal fired power stations are at the mine-mouth. In Queensland our coal is generally located well inland where there is very limited cooling water available - air cooling is possible, but the thermodynamics are aginst you and thermal efficiency is lower. Mine-mouth power stations may produce cheap electricity at the gate, but transmission costs to demand areas can be quite substantial.

By contrast the fuel delivered to a nuclear fuelled power station has very little freight cost. This means that the power station can be located whereever convenient - near to abundant cooling water, and near to power demand. Regional Queensland, presently power starved, could blossom with nuclear fuelled electricity available. And don't forget that the waste heat can be used for desalination as well. Suer nuclear generation has problems - let's get working on solving them!

While there is some carbon dioxide attributable to the mining and refining of uranium it is far less than that produced by burning coal. Carbon dioxide capture and storage, while theoretically possible, is yet to be demonstrated. This processing of large volumes of gas will increase the cost of coal fired electricity considerably - probably by a factor of three or four times, taking it well past the cost of nuclear fuelled electricity.

Wonder whether the powers that be (morons or not) will have sorted this out before we colonise Mars?

There is no shortage of water only of common sense. Why is there not a de-salination plant off every coastal city. Is it the bullplop of they cost to much of our taxes to run. If so why are we giving natural gas away to other countries (we as the people own it) at a low price but still make profit but cannot feed it to the de-salination plants.
The gas is already piped to the coasts so shall we use it to save ourselves from thirst or give it away at a small dollar value.
A few making money from the publics property or all of us being able to
drink water would be a lot more economically viable than it being transported to another country. And lets not give the rights away any longer to our natural resources to a private company for next to nothing then pay through the nose to get products that we already have and own.
The choice is to ,mostly ,give away our resources and pay more to get them back as something else or use them wisely ourselves to get what we need .As for nuclear power we should have four plants to start with at the four points of the compass around canberra so as to ensure total safety and then linked into the national grid . I can only guess most citizens would be happy the safety of these plants would be the first priority.

Well done Sue and Jim.

To the pro nuke fraternity the FACT is that a nuclear power plant will both use and consume, quote:
"per megawatt, 20 to 83% more (water) than for other power stations" (parliamentary research paper, 6/12/06).

And this excludes the up to 155,000,000 litres - per day - for the Olympic Dam mine alone (EIS Aug '06) in our driest state, PLUS a required 400 MW desal plant - equiv to the Hazelwood coal power plant expansion.

Don't kid ourselves or your children's future this election. Nuclear power CONTRIBUTES to greenhouse emissions, weapons, wastes and massive water use.

www.VoteNuclearFree.net

Sylvia ("had more nuclear power generators been built in the past, instead of coal fired generators, the problem would have been lessened") had more nuclear power generators been built in the past (say, by WW2) conventional bombing alone would have rendered Europe and the UK totally uninhabitable, essentially for ever.

http://www.VoteNuclearFree.net

Like a dog to his vomit, Atom1. So if the facts just don't add up, just repeat the mantra often enough and some turkey will believe it.

So the official paper made the same stupid mistake as the authors did? Whats new?

would the share-holders in uranium mining stocks please identify themselves before re-entering this discussion?

i can not imagine any other reason for promoting nuclear power when green alternatives are available.

well, that's not entirely true, there's your naive fools who imagine technology never fails, is never sabotaged, is never compromised by incompetent management, and genuine nutters.

i have watched atomic power plants being built with welding flaws that compromised the integrity of the containment vessel. "we have a schedule to meet,and she'll be right, anyway" was the management excuse. this always happens in human affairs, and the convenience of being able to put a nuclear power station next to consumers, as mentioned above, is not really a selling point to me.

Yair good on you Perseus. Still innately incapable of expressing any disagreement with anyone without being abjectly offensive. You’ve got a reasonable point to make in your first post. So why ruin it with your sputum?

.
One of the biggest problems with nuclear is that power plants would be built and operated in an age great tension.

We really are on the cusp of civil upheaval, as fuel prices rise and cause inflation, unemployment and general unrest, if not absolute societal crisis.

OK, so nuclear power these days might be able to be made very safe…..in a nice happy society. But NOT in a disrupted turmoil-ridden one.

There is no way that we can get nuclear plants up and running on a large scale before oil shortages / unaffordability really hits us. And if we can implement biofuel supplies, along with various other essential elements of sustainability to the extent that society will continue to function in a reasonably coherent and calm manner after oil stops being our major power source, then we won’t need nuclear power, will we.

Yes nuclear would basically replace coal and gas, not oil. And yes it would be nice to wean ourselves right off of all fossil fuels quickly. If we are really smart, or greatly pressured, we will be able to greatly reduce the overall rate of consumption and substitute it with biofuels and other energy sources to some extent. But nuclear would not contribute to a quick weaning. The timeframe for its implementation is too long.

So by the time we have readjusted to the new overall energy regime to the point where society is confidently calm and coherent, and a nuclear industry can be safely implemented, we won’t need it!!

Perseus says:
"Clearly, most of the water is not lost or used up (ie discharged as steam) when "used". It is merely borrowed for cooling purposes and returned to the place it was drawn from."

Perseus, it used to be clear that the sun circled around the earth. It still seems much that way to most of us who celebrate the sun crossing the yardarm. And what difference does it make? In a simpler world, it would make none at all.

Alas, the world beneath our feet has become a complete surprise. It hurtles through space at insane velocities. The Solar system likely moving even faster, it its orbit around the centre of the Milky Way, and the motion of the galaxy in deep space adds further to what seems to us a very smooth ride.

And having provided a wider perspective, more in the way of a metaphor than a concrete explanation, I return to your opinion:
"[the water] is merely borrowed for cooling purposes and returned to the place it was drawn from"

Whether it is sea water or fresh water, it has been changed. Its temperature has changed, its volume has changed, and if chlorine or other measures for antifouling have been added, then its chemical composition has been changed.

There's some 40 or more years of literature about the environmental impacts of cooling water discharges from power stations. Surely some monkey with a typewriter, somewhere, some time, has written something you could use to bolster your preconceptions. Could you offer perhaps a link or two toward your argument?

Or are you content simply to offer a kneejerk opinion, about what appear self-evident, and which in a simpler world would maybe suffice, and then sit back and wait for the sun to cross the yardarm?

Insignificant:
The point you make is very relevant!.....There is NO NEED at all for us to be suffering from lack of fresh water and having to be nuked by Nuclear Power Plants and their deadly effluents!

The answer is Solar Powered Desalination Plants situated around the coastline of Australia (similar to the much vaunted and finally abandoned plan to position Bloodhound Missiles sites around the coastline in the late 50`s)
It IS the answer, however it will NEVER happen whilst we have Politicians who kow-tow to big business, instead of tackling the real isssues that are important to the future well-being of the country and it`s peoples, purely to satisfy their own short term profits and rewards as they live their luxurious lifestyle of today,oblivious to the looming disasters en route. After all, if things get too bad in OZ, the retired Pollies can move to a more hospitable abodes (eg: Arab Emirates) and continue their life unfettered by trivialities such as lack of drinking water!

Atom1

It's doubtful the kind of bombs they had in WW2 would have done much to a nuclear reactor containment building, and there are much softer targets, such as switching yards and transformers.

Sylvia.

Plerdsus & taswegian,

Even oil and wind power are nuclear, as the energy derives from the sun. Radon gas already escapes from any uranium-bearing mineral, tapping deep-rock heat will not increase the rate of emission. Radon is not dangerous unless physically concentrated in air people are breathing, because it is inert and decays in days. Moreover, hot rocks are fixed in place; no-one proposes digging them up and relocating them close to cities.

Electricity from nuclear fission requires digging up uranium, transporting it, purifying it, enriching its fissile isotope, somehow disposing of the tailings and DU, transporting the fissile material to a power plant close to electrical demand (not strictly necessary, but Zwitkowski's report says it is), then storing all fission products and irradiated materials while they decay to safe levels, some of them for thousands of years.

No-one touts sodium-sulfur batteries for use without containment, but other molten-salt battries are already in safe automotive use. Grid storage may increasingly use molten salt or vanadium-ion-flow batteries (as on King Island), but combustible fuel and hydroelectric dams will always be perfectly appropriate energy stores. Pumped storage has been commonplace for decades, but innovations continue as in the seawater plant on Okinawa or this intriguing Dutch concept:

http://www.kema.com/corporate/news/corporate/2007/Q3/energie-eiland.asp

KAEP,

The Australian dollar never depended on oil prices! We import almost half the petroleum we use, more by dollar value than LNG exports, and total petroleum expenditure is less than 4% of GDP. OPEC countries that must import *all* their oil spend less than 2% of GDP on it. It is low-income countries that are being hit by peak oil, not us.

Atom1 and Sylvia,

nuclear power is a fruit of WWII weapons development. That effort also yielded bombs specifically designed to destroy hydroelectric dams; surely any country making war against a nuclear-powered opponent would obtain or invent weapons to destroy reactors. But even if an attack failed to damage reactor containment vessels, if the surrounding buildings and equipment are smashed then radioactive material would certainly leak. Spent fuel and other waste is often stored on-site without bomb-proof containment.

Sir Vivor, after an eliptical orbit around the planet Gonzon said,

"Whether it is sea water or fresh water, it has been changed. Its temperature has changed (by a few degrees), its volume has changed (marginally), and if (a very big if) chlorine or other measures for antifouling have been added, then its chemical composition has been changed."

Anything to cling to a sacred cow. The authors went out of their way to imply that the water was scarce. Sea water is hardly scarce.
They went out of their way to claim that this water was being used up. It clearly is not.
They went out of their way to claim that the use of this water would mean shortages of water for other public needs. Bollocks.

They either gave the issue no serious thought or they deliberately set out to mislead the public who has a right to get the truth.

And Ludwig wants me to treat them as anything but lying low life?

For all you bright sparks, consider this:

The classic dictum in medicine states: " If a disease is incurable, prevention is the only recourse " !

While we debate the issues of Global warming - to which Gore received a Nobel Prize, here's another slant worth it's weight in carats.

While the spectre of global warming looms large with associated epidemics of anthropod-borne diseases and trillions of ecological refuges escaping catastropic meteorological conditions, nuclear power as an alternative has an equally dire prognosis.

NC is responsible for the emission of substantial quantities of global warming gases from each step of the nuclear fuel chain, and the medical consequences of NP are equally catastrophic.

Each NC reactor contains 1000 times more long-lived radiation than released by the Hiroshima bomb, and the form of 250 new biologically dangerous isotopes - some with minuscule half-lives and others with half-lives of 17 million years ! This material - radioactive waste - must be isolated from the enviornment for geological time spans, a physical impossibility ? Already radioactive isotopes are leaking into the soil and water from nuclear waste repositories in many countries. These nasties, bioconcentrate by orders of magnitude at each step of the food chain. Invisible and cryptogenic to the senses, these mutagenic radioactive materials will migrate and concentrate in specific bodily organs - iodine 131 in the thyroid, cesium 137 in the brain and muscle, strontium 90 in bone, and plutonium 239 ( 24,400 years half-life ) in lung, liver, bone, fetus, and testicle. Ultimately, these radioisotopes will induce malignancy, however, because of the latent period of carcinogenesis, the cancers will not be diagnosed for many years - it maybe too goddamn late !

Over generations, radioisotopes in gonads will increase the incidence of genetic and chromosonal diseases. Animal and plants will be similarly affected. Nuclear power is therefore a fundamentally mutagenic industry that results in cancer with a transient byproduct - electricity generation. As such, NC is medically contradicated.

You can argue till the cows..

I dont belong to Greenpeace either. Build your Nucs elsewhere, preferably not in my backyard.

So Perseus replies:
"And Ludwig wants me to treat them as anything but lying low life?"

But offers no real evidence or opinions to back his argument?

Is this, then, all that remains of the Mythical One who slew the Gorgon?

It's a good thing there is no urgency about climate change or the need for gigawatts of low carbon energy. I read the link on the underwater suction pumps. It sounds like a certain winner: let's replace half the coal fired power stations immediately.

As for genetic disease I haven't heard of recurring problems near well run nuclear plants. I suspect that inbreeding due to lack of transport will be a worse problem..come to think of it I think the problem is already in my neighbourhood.

I do agree that perhaps we could wear transmission losses and cooling tower reduced efficiency (compared to flowing water) from nuclear plant built well inland, perhaps using saline bore water. I suspect the residents of Broken Hill and Woomera may not be quite that sensitive. Urban aesthetes will be able to sip lattes while the source of electricity is out of sight and out of mind.

Taswegian,

Broken Hill won't be needing bore water to cool nuclear reactors:

http://www.barrierminer.com.au/article.php?article=1040

Nuclear power is not a requirement for "Gigawatt-scale generation". Small generators are cheaper than big ones:

http://smallisprofitable.org/

You seem to think renewables can only retire a fraction of existing coal-fired power generation. But it isn't so, because unlike nuclear reactors, the more small ambient-energy generators you commit to buying, the lower the price gets and the more reasonable it seems to buy more. Unlike nuclear or coal power, it is more like buying cars than digging holes in the ground -- except you don't need petrol.

And remember wind/wave/solar/tidal electricity generation is only one facet of renewable energy. Biofuels have always been a major energy carrier (though somewhat neglected in technologically-advanced countries where we have let oil and electricity displace them) and have the long-term potential eventually to deliver more energy than we presently obtain from fossil fuels (which are merely prehistoric biofuels preserved and concentrated by geology).

http://envirofuel.com.au/2007/09/13/new-iea-report-says-bioenergy-can-supply-20-50-of-world-needs/

What would be a realistic timetable for replacing *all* the coal-fired plants if you've picked nuclear as your preferred low-carbon solution?

Once you've done that, how long will proven reserves of nuclear fuel last? How much more energy and water will it take to extract the remaining low-grade ores? Will thorium reactors be ready yet? How long will it take to replace all the uranium reactors with thorium ones? How do you ensure the security of the resulting waste?

As nuclear energy proponents bribe and bluster planning permission for a reactor on Defense land somewhere near Karratha, real developers -- who don't have to put up with NIMBYism or NOMPism -- are creating cheap solar, tidal and wave energy collectors, just as wind power costs are already below the real price of nuclear power.

The market and regular (as opposed to "railroad") planning processes can choose amongst numerous reasonable ways to reduce emissions and replace coal. Concentrate political efforts on persuading state governments to retire the big coal-burning dinosaurs early instead of granting ever-longer extensions of service.

once more, for the dummies:

chernobyl didn't fail because of technology, it failed because the human infrastructure, "society", failed. working technology was not maintained because of human weakness.

oz nuclear power stations will be built and run by humans, under the direction of the people who have presided over the near-collapse of the public health system, the education system, the transport system, and the actual collapse of agriculture and fishing.

trusting politicians and bureaucrats to keep nuclear power stations running in good maintenance at design load passes the triumph of hope over experience ands moves into raving lunacy. our medieval political society can not cope with 21st century technology.

A (partial) timeline of nuclear incidents and accidents:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=214632362&blogID=289277470

How nuclear reactors kill animals:
http://www.nirs.org/multimedia/video/l2k_wmv.htm

Sylvia, conventional bombing in WW2 would have posed MASSIVE risks to reactors and their safety systems and cooling systems.

And yes, I agree, anyone partaking here with shares or super in uranium please make yourselves known.

http://www.votenuclearfree.net/

"once more, for the dummies"

Ad hominem attack - rest of post, and subsequent posts to this thread by the same poster will be ignored.

Sylvia.

'would the share-holders in uranium mining stocks please identify themselves before re-entering this discussion?'
Posted by DEMOS, Saturday, 27 October 2007 7:09:40 AM

Practically every one with superannuation [every 'working family' dare I say] is a shareholder in BHP Billiton which owns Olympic Dam.
Olympic Dam contains 38 per cent of the total global economic uranium resource base.

The issue with any power station is that generation process has a limited efficiency.

For coal power stations it is roughly 1/3 which means that 2/3 of the energy needs to be expelled to condense the low pressure steam so that it may be re used. (1 watt of electricity = 2 watts expelled)

Gas turbines use a fuel cycle and then a steam cycle and then get the efficiency up to about 50% (1 watt electricity = 1 watt expelled)

Which is why gas generation produces far less CO2 than coal per unit of energy generated. (more greenhouse friendly)

Present day Nuclear also has an efficiency of about 1/3 but new design reactors (Gen IV) will have an efficiency of about 45% (close to gas)

The point of the energy being expelled, is that it has to go somewhere. Most power stations use cooling towers which are able to expel huge amounts of energy by evaporating the water into the air (The white vapour at the top of the fat towers)

The alternatives to this where water is a premium, is to use sea water to condense the steam by pumping it through the heat exchanger and then pump the warmer sea water back. This raises the local sea temperature s couple of degrees.

The third option is to use massive steam to air heat exchangers, which transmits the heat directly into the air which rises into the upper atmosphere. (Kendall 3000 MW power station near Johannesburg)

The point of the above is that nuclear does not need any more water than coal, and if necessary the more expensive steam/air exchangers can be used and the water consumption taken down to almost zero.

The argument of additional water consumption is extremely weak and not based on fact.

"trusting politicians and bureaucrats to keep nuclear power stations running in good maintenance at design load passes the triumph of hope over experience ands moves into raving lunacy. our medieval political society can not cope with 21st century technology."

Demos, how right you are. Those in control, who wish to make nuclear decisions on our behalf, are constantly exposed for their ignorance and their incompetence.

Interestingly, though slightly off topic, none of the pro-nukes on this thread have mentioned that the "21st century" Lucas Heights reactor has conked out. Rumour has it that it came close to melt-down, though I have not yet been able to substantiate that rumour.

Australia's new $400 million nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, in Sydney, will remain shut down until the beginning of next year, months longer than the operators had originally planned.

In July, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) revealed the newly-commissioned reactor had difficulties because of a leak, three months after it was opened by the Prime Minister.

ANSTO also said there were problems with unstable nuclear fuel rods used to power the reactor's core.

The organisation said it hoped the plant would be re-opened by mid-September, saying the worst-case scenario would be a six-month shutdown.

It appears the worst-scenario has been confirmed, with a statement on the ANSTO website saying the reactor will not be operational again until January.

This reactor was constructed in Argentina and the technology permits the reactor to produce weapons grade plutonium.

However, ANSTO says it is not commenting further because of the caretaker conventions surrounding federal election campaigns.

It is yet to say what part of the guidelines, issued by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, are applicable to the Lucas Heights reactor.

So now this industry is hiding behind the caretaker conventions?

Secrecy is the culture in the nuclear industry and I know not of any government yet that has called them to account.

The article states that:

"The water consumption of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency and conservation measures is negligible compared to nuclear or coal. Operating a 2,400 Watt fan heater for one hour consumes 0.01 litres of water if wind is the energy source, 0.26 litres if solar is the energy source, 4.5 litres if coal is the energy source, or 5.5 litres if nuclear power is the energy source."

I'm hoping the authors are following this conversation and can offer the source of this data, and state whether it is offered directly or has been inferred.

And then, there's Democritus' opinion, that:

"Present day Nuclear also has an efficiency of about 1/3 but new design reactors (Gen IV) will have an efficiency of about 45% (close to gas."

which can be can be gotten from the Wikipedia article on Generation IV reactors:

"Supercritical water-cooled reactors (SCWRs) are promising advanced nuclear systems because of their high thermal efficiency (i.e., about 45% vs. about 33% efficiency for current LWRs) and considerable plant simplification."

The remainder of the article suggest to me that Generation IV reactors seem to me a bit far down the line to be of immediate use in dealing with our global warming difficulties.

My humble guess is that the sort of subsidies and federal guarantees necessary to plant any kind of nuclear reactor anywhere in Australia will not be forthcoming in the near future; not even from a Coalition government.

It is good that information about the water use of nucler power is coming out. Water is our most precious resource and although some of the issues surrounding the power station uses are discussed often, the incredible amount used in the mining of uranium is a huge issue for this country to deal with also.
The truth is there are no easy answers. Unfortunately, although the science of nuclear power is clever, is an option that is not intelligent in the long term. Surely the lesson that we have learnt from the impending oil crisis would show humanity that using finite resources is short sighted. We have other options, but there is less centralised profits to be made if we reorganise the agenda, so the push away from nuclear is a difficult one.
It doesn't help when there are sarcastic, misinformed gits suggesting that sea water can be used in Nuclear Power plants, as though the salt would not affect the equipment in any way.

Belated apologies for my North American spelling of "defence" above.

Democritus, Sir Vivor,

The argument from water usage is indeed based on fact; this is the experience of actual nuclear power stations in countries which already produce much of their electricity this way. Nuclear reactors tend to be located according to availability of large volumes of water which is passed through the plant and discharged at a higher temperature rather than evaporated (the thermal efficiency of steam equipment cooled this way depends on the initial temperature of the cooling water -- the cooler the better, which is why inland nuclear power plants have to be shut down during heat waves and fresh-water shortages). "Consumption" usually doesn't refer to the volume of water passed through the plant, but to the net evaporative loss due to the presence of the plant -- this includes excess evaporation from downstream rivers and lakes due to their elevated temperature.

Coal-fired power plants are located near coal mines and are therefore likely to use more cooling towers, which requires less input water but decreases thermal efficiency. Evaporative cooling concentrates contaminants in the small amount of water discharged, whether already present or originating in the power plant.

Of course seawater cooling is possible, and there are other, better, newer ways it might be done (including improving thermal efficiency with an extra thermodynamic cycle or two, costly but eminently possible), but there are also other, better, newer non-nuclear electric generation options as well.

For instance:

"Solar is a nice, soft, easy answer" -- John Howard (Prime Minister of Australia)

"We think we can move much faster than nuclear and on an unsubsidised basis, we will be cheaper than nuclear power, and we should be cheaper than IGCC [integrated gasification combined cycle] coal-based power generation" -- Vinod Khosla, venture capitalist (late of Sun Microsystems, Grameen Bank)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048420.htm

This is the same collector technology that supplies a respectable fraction (90MW thermal, converting to 36MW electrical, whenever it's sunny) of the primary energy supply to NSW's Liddell power station:

http://askac.atnf.csiro.au/meetings/2003-09-10-Energy/Solar%20Concentrating%20Power%20Developments-David%20Mills.pdf

Maybe gigawatt-scale generators have a future after all ;-)

Xoddam, re:
"The argument from water usage is indeed based on fact;"

I'm satisfied this is so, as I researched a closely related issue over 30 years ago. My interest is in the details of determining water consumption for each electricity source listed, and hence my request for citations.

For those who doubt it is a problem, perhaps they should have a look through the citations listed at the end of the Parliamentary Library report mentioned in Green and Wareham's article.

See:
"Water requirements of nuclear power stations"
at
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2006-07/07rn12.pdf

In particular,

"9. Water & Sustainability (Volume 3):U.S. Water Consumption for
Power Production—The Next Half Century, Topical Report
March 2002, EPRI, Concord,
http://www.epriweb.com/public/000000000001006786.pdf"

provides the US Electric Power Research Institute's projections of water requirements of electric power plants there, over the next 50 or so years. EPRI would not be anti-nuclear or anti-coal; they are more like an industry lobby with a planning perspective.

Perhaps Perseus can read up, have a slice of humble pie and offer some to others who believe Green and Wareham's concern to be baseless propaganda?

Meanwhile, I'd appreciate the added bibliographic detail about water use attributed to wind and solar electricity.

A very interesting post and my thanks to the backgrounding provided.
While logic, scientific or otherwise, should determine 21st century energy generation, we all suspect/know that it will be a political trade-off done in a time frame that almost begars belief.
Thorium reactors along with fusion might be at the far end of that time frame, sustainable cooling systems allowing.
Thinking 'political', wind, solar, hot rocks and wave energy generation will probably be spaced along that continuum perhaps even in that order.
Coal fired power will be like the backyard bbq in a total fire ban.
Energy saving mechanisms will have been politically mandated perhaps even to the point of everyone carrying a carbon credit card.
And yes just as some posts have pointed out, the process will be corrupted by some out of design or stupidity. So lets just keep calm and dignified as we face it together.

Australia's second largest uranium mine, at Olympic Dam uses 12GL/year at the moment, though this may grow to 48GL/year. Currently the water is sourced from the Great Artesian Basin, but there is talk of building a coastal desalination plant and a pipeline to meet future needs.

http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/industry/corporate/eecp/case-studies/wmc.html

12GL/year is really quite a trivial amount - it's only 32 ML per day. Compare this with Metropolitan Sydney's average daily consumption over the last week of 1492 ML.

Given the suggestion that a desalinator and pipeline may be built in future, this indicates that the Artesian Basin (which is yielding salty water anyway) cannot tolerate increased withdrawal, but it also means that expansion of the mine will not further stress the local water resource.

So, while the raw numbers of water usage by the uranium mining industry look large, they are small when seen in context. Further, where necessary, the uranium mining industry can afford to source its water in a way that has no impact on water resources. Add that to the fact that nuclear power stations can be cooled by sea water, or if necessary, air cooled, and it is clear that the authors of the original article have started out with an objection to nuclear power, and are just using water shortage as a spurious pretext for not using it.

Sylvia.

The way Sir Vivor et al continue with this totally baseless notion that water passing through a heat exchanger is somehow "used up", is breathtaking. Once cooling water has absorbed a few degrees of additional heat it no longer delivers the cooling benefit and is discharged.

If that water is fresh water then it will continue to cool down to ambient temperature after release and eventually, after remixing with other supplies, be able to perform one or more additional functions. These could be as environmental flows to a wetland or river, irrigation of pastures or parklands or for industrial uses. It is not "used up", merely borrowed by the cooling process.

The only people who seem to persist with this absurd notion that water is only capable of a single use are the urban punters who continue to demand ultra pure water to flush toilets while complaining about their inability to water their gardens.

In fact, warm fresh water may actually have a higher value in certain circumstances. A supply for irrigation purposes that might be 5C warmer than ambient water temperatures would produce major benefits in raising spring soil temperatures and kick starting soil microbial activity for an enhanced growing season.

And as stated before, sea water is returned to the ocean where only very localised temperature increases are recorded. The notion that cooling with sea water must involve contamination of the actual fuel cycle is so ignorant as to barely merit comment.

Perseus,

You are right. Australia must go total-nuclear-industries or PERISH. I have shown why on several recent forum threads. Detractors continually fail to face the ugly truth, not about nuclear but about their own human weaknesses and frailties in the face of a full blown global energy drought.

There are NO reasons why Australia cannot STOP IMMIGRATION, grow its economy through PEAKOIL and actually fulfil its humanitarian duties to help stabilise civil meltdown in other countries by fully value adding and economically exploiting its 40% of world nuclear reserves.

Any extra evaporate water that coastal nuclear reactors (est 28% for PBR reactors, less for higher temperature Thorium reactors) create will be taken out to sea during daylight and returned to coastal ranges, where it will PRECIPITATE at night and fill local dams like Warragamba.

In fact, measures to pump desalinated water to Warragamba have been touted and rejected due to high power costs of pumping. Nuclear plants say at Kurnell or Jervis Bay of Newy would literally pump volumes of clean water inland for free as an incidental consequence. On the other hand, the evaporates from inland-mine-face coal plants create acid rain and particulate nano-pollution that this very minute compromises the heath and well being of EVERY person living in Western NSW, Victoria and Qld.

But more than any of the other arguments for Nuclear power in this country, it must be noted that in the next 10-20 years the fundimental brutality of the human sex drive, selfish interest-group lobbying for continued IMMIGRATION, subsequent overpopulation and PEAKOIL could account for some 15 million tragic deaths in this country as 3/4 of the world's population will be decimated in riots, civil unrest and disease associated with energy crises.

Continued..

Continuing..

Because, the second law of thermodynamics states "ENERGY=ORDER", the ONLY way to stop that outcome is NUCLEAR power because it is the only source of power with sufficient point-to-surrounding energy gradients to sustain civil order. I must remind green energy lobbyists that solar panels and wind turbines and biomass/biofuels will NOT get cheaper. Their cost will increase proportional to oil costs, a factor of 10X within a decade.

The grand plans for sustainable green power will vanish amidst transport and competition crises for these items. At PEAKOIL, the ONLY commodity worth the transport costs will be nuclear reactors and nuclear fuels, which Australia OUGHT to have in abundance by that time. Frankly, the debate is over. Nuclear detractors are condemning themselves and fellow Australians to death. They certainly do not show the mental fibre necessary to survive imminent hostilities.

Analysis also makes it clear, as a PEAKOIL bridge, Nuclear must be phased out in favour of geothermal by 2050 if we get past PEAKOIL.

Recent Chevron adds on Foxtel boast about that oil giant's committment to Geothermal R&D. I submit that this recent Chevron turnaround is a straw-man and that if we are really to survive the coming crises we DO NOT rely on oil company propaganda. Australia must be actively engaged OURSELVES in all aspects of Geothermal R&D as a gilt edged priority. Including the important area of advanced multi-directional laser-drilling technology.

And remember, while it won't be possible to import solar-panels mid-PEAKOIL, a few ace drilling contractors with a liquid-fuel cracked from nuclear power could drill geothermal power generation plants for every major population centre in this country. This would maintian order and assure the security and wellbeing of all Australian citizens.

And again, its important for all Australians to participate. You can't expect to secure a future for your famnily based on closing your eyes and hoping oil prices will not rise.

Ten reasons we dont need to build Nuclear Power Plants:

* Nuclear reactors are pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction,posing an unacceptable risk. We need to eliminate, not proliferate them. Any attack could render a city like Sydney a sacrificial zone and kill ten of thousands within weeks.

* More reactors won't halt climatic change in time. We need 1500 world wide just to make a smidgen in greenhouse gas emissions. One reactor takes 7-10 years to build.

* Devoting scarce resources to shore up nukes abrogates climatic change solutions - conservation, energy efficiency and renewables i.e wind, tidal and solar.

* Building reactors to offset climatic change is cost prohibitive. Reactors cost $10B+plus to build. $25 B ++ to decommission.

* Nukes are not emission free. Uranium mining, milling and enrichment - to construction, waste storage, decommissioning etc. All consume fossil fuels in the process.

* Reactors at the beginning and end of their life-spans are at their most dangerous. Breakdowns and accidents. Most of the 420 operating now are nearing their 'end' cycles.

* Electricity isn't the problem. It's fossil fuel-powered vehicles. Adding new NP's wont address this or reduce these major gas emitters.

* Decommissioned NP sites are NEVER absolutely radiation free zones.

* Historically, NP will ultimately proliferate to weapons of mass destruction.

* More reactors send the wrong message abroad. The peaceful atom is a myth exposed by weapons programmes of Indian, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and Iran.

"You are right. Australia must go total-nuclear-industries or PERISH."

KAEP

That's what the US did - years ago. 104 nuclear reactors and expanding and they continue to PERISH!

'That's what the US did - years ago. 104 nuclear reactors and expanding and they continue to PERISH!'
....and what of France, Lithuania, Slovakia, Belgium, Ukraine, Sweden, S. Korea, Bulgaria, Armenia, Slovenia, Hungary, Finland, Switzerland, Germany, Czech R., Japan, U.K., Spain, Russia, Canada, ...etc. etc.?
All continue to perish?
http://www.solcomhouse.com/nuclear.htm

Some Good News for Jim and Sue,

It is true that the traditional Light Water Reactors need considerable cooling to work efficiently. In some cases this cooling is provided by water derived from rivers, as is the case in France.

In many parts of the World the reactors are situated on the coast and use seawater that is abundant. Note: A large seawater cooled, coal fired powerstation, operates at Gladstone Queensland.

Jim and Sue should also be aware that the majority of the Australian population, and thus industry are located in coastal cities. It is close to these cities that seawater cooled nuclear power stations should be installed to power major desalination plants.

A bit more good news; a new generation of gas cooled reactors are on the way, with the South African Pebble Bed system leading the way. These stations could use air cooling systems, or hybrid cooling systems that are very economical in water use.

I am pleased to be the bearer of factual scientific news to Jim and Sue, and trust that they will appreciate this delve into scientific reality.

Best regards,

Michael Clarke (Dr.), FIEAust, FAusIMM, RPEQ

Shellback

What kind of attack on a power plant are you envisaging that could have the result you're describing?

Power reactors have been built in less than five years. While things like wind farms can individually be built in less time, how long would it take overall to build equivalent renewable energy supplies?

Note that solar panels take two or three years just to recover the energy used to make them.

It costs more to build a particular generating capacity out of wind farms or solar panels than it does to build, and subsequently decommission, the equivalent nuclear generating capacity. A nuclear plant producing 1GW would cost about $2 billion to $3 billion to build. A solar plant with the same (on average, which is a problem in itself)) power output would cost more like $10 billion. The decommissioning cost of the nuclear plant would be around $300 million, and would in any case be incurred 40 or 50 years downstream. It typically adds a fraction of a cent per kWh to the cost of power.

Do we need to reduce CO2 emissions to zero? Is it even a good idea (probably not - think ice age). If a nuclear plant produces power for a fraction of the net CO2 output of the fossil fuel plant it replaces, then we're ahead.

Renewables have emissions associated with their construction as well.

If "electricity isn't the problem" then there's no need to solve it. Of course, it's part of the problem and addressing CO2 emissions resulting from electricity generation represents part of a solution.

If we had nuclear power available in quantity, we could use the power to produce hydrogen to replace fossil fuels in vehicles.

There are no absolutely radiation free zones in the world? There's always some radiation, and always has been.

Is there a serious risk that if Australia adopted nuclear power, that the result would be that Australia developed a bomb?

Sylvia.

Sylvia "There's always some radiation, and always has been".

Irrelevant, because human-made ionizing radiation is IN ADDITION TO natural background radiation, and its effects are cumulative.

"Is there a serious risk that if Australia adopted nuclear power, that the result would be that Australia developed a bomb?"

Yes. See THE NUCLEAR POWER - WEAPONS CONNECTION here:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=214632362&blogID=288871569

Have you been to SA's suffering mound springs? I have.

BHPB's Olympic Dam mine remains our driest state's largest electricity and water consumer.
Currently licenced to 42Ml/day and - unlike you and I - exempt from paying for it under the Roxby Indenture Act.
Expansion of the mine: up to 155Ml/day (Olympic Dam EIS) and a 400 MW power plant - hardly trivial.

http://www.VoteNuclearFree.net

Thank you, MikeC, for a timely dose of reality. Note how most of the anti-nuc posters have fallen back on the usual tangents after the veracity of the authors central claim has been soundly repudiated.

What this entire thread clearly demonstrates is the way the green movement is capable of dragging out dubious factoids and linking them to any convenient issue of public concern. At present, due to the drought, the community has a heightened sensitivity to water supply issues and, surprise, surprise, along come the global village idiots to dry hump their monomania on any convenient leg.

And thank you KAEP. Your syntax scares me sometimes and you spend excess time in places I would not go. But we know the lights are on and someone is home.

Perseus, re:

"The way Sir Vivor et al continue with this totally baseless notion that water passing through a heat exchanger is somehow "used up" ...".

I Said what? I didn't say that, nor did the original article. You said that. Perseus, you have conjured an opinion out of thin air and you now seem convinced it is a fact.

Go back and read over what was written in the article. Have a look at the links I posted, documenting concerns about water availability in the face of climate change, growing populations and projected increases in electricity demands. Think outside your garden fence.

As for Sylvia naming all the countries that are still relying on nuclear electricity, she and others might care to read

"Nuclear Power, Climate Policy and Sustainability: An Assessment by the Austrian Nuclear Advisory Board"
Vienna, Austria, 2007
www.nirs.org/climate/background/austriangovtreport607.pdf

Which comprehensively discusses the result of an Austrian reassessment of nuclear electricity in response to claims that atomic power has a useful greenhouse abatement contribution to make.

The Austrians have decided to continue to move away from nuclear. I expect that the fraction of nuclear electricity in their grid will continue to decrease.

Interesting in light of our upcoming Federal election. What party in Australia besides the Lyndon LaRouche inspired Citizen's Electoral Council is gung-ho on nuclear reactors? Maybe there is a coalition member somewhere out there willing to risk a "moral victory" by offering jobs, prosperity and radioactive gaseous effluents to his or her constituents, but I doubt it. Shall we leave it to the Naturist Lifestyle Party?

Maybe if Lyndon came over from America he could convince us all?

Is it rumoured that he can sell the concept of an ice cube to an Eskimo

The points that Sir Vivor and Xoddam missed or chose to ignore from my previous post were:

-There are alternatives to using fresh water, such as sea water and air. While these are a little more expensive, they are both technologies presently used where water is scarce.

I can therefore repeat my assertion that water consumption is a very flimsy barrier against nuclear power.

While present reactors (1980s design) are slightly less efficient than Coal, this is simply due to the low steam temperature at which they generate. While 45% efficiency is probably a decade away, 37% (more efficient than coal) merely requires technology readily available now.

Geothermal energy mentioned above is subject to the same laws of physics, and due to the lower steam temperatures is likely to use twice as much cooling per kWhr than coal. Should we then ban this technology, or simply use fresh water friendly technologies such as I have mentioned for the nuclear solution?

xoddam

Very interested in your comments about "As nuclear energy proponents bribe and bluster planning permission for a reactor on Defense land somewhere near Karratha"

As I live in the area, I find this all news to me. Can you give me any more details?

Kaep,

I have seen you loosely interpreting the second law of thermodynamics. The law simply states that entropy always increases. As entropy is a measure of disorder, disorder always increases.

However, the term "order" used here has absolutely nothing to do with political or civil order in the way that the "flavours" of quarks have nothing to do with taste.

Energy consumption can only increase disorder so energy = order is fundementally incorrect.

I would not normally comment on this as it is off topic, but you have repeated this several times over various threads.

"Nuclear Power, Climate Policy and Sustainability: An Assessment by the Austrian Nuclear Advisory Board"
Vienna, Austria, 2007
www.nirs.org/climate/background/austriangovtreport607.pdf

You don't need to go past the title page to know where it's headed. Radiation warning sign, Chernobyl, men in protective suits.

Sylvia.

Democritus,

I acknowledged your sea-cooling point and explained that water use figures include excess fresh-water evaporation, not gross flow.

Fossil,

I don't know of any plans. Karratha needs electricity and is far from NIMBYs and NOMPs (present company excepted?) -- therefore a better bet than Geelong.

KAEP,

Peak oil is *now*.

Nuclear power isn't getting cheaper. The economics are opaque, and quoted prices don't account for the insurance and long-term waste-management burdens which are invariably assumed by government (Sylvia, "decommissioning" is cheap because it just turns power stations into radioactive waste).

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/6/92951/26204
http://thebulletin.org/roundtable/nuclear-power-climate-change/

Wind power is cheaper than nuclear power *now*, and has been for a decade.

http://climateprotectioncampaign.typepad.com/cpc/2006/03/cost_of_wind_vs.html
http://www.ieer.org/reports/wind/summrec.html
http://hubbers.ca/blog/2007/10/03/canwea-and-wind-power-vs-nuclear/

The cost of solar power is falling *now*.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/19/ccview19.xml
http://simontay78.wordpress.com/category/solar/
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11676-baking-boosts-efficiency-of-plastic-solar-cells.html
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/30/11351/3283

Biofuel production is booming *now*.

http://biopact.com/

Australia uses wind power, solar power and biofuel *now*, as do most countries.

Only a handful of countries use fission for energy. None uses it to make fuel.

*Hundreds* of research teams and businesses are developing and commercialising renewable energy technology, and it gets better every year.

The winner you've picked is a reactor type invented 40 years ago. Today's innovative nuclear ideas are very, very expensive research projects. There is a single operating PBNR today, in Beijing. One. And it's going to save us from Peak Oil!

Dude, every day plants make fuel from sunlight, easily converted into liquids good for existing equipment. The only fuel fission reactors might make (they don't now) is hydrogen via high-temperature steam electrolysis. Liquefying hydrogen then burning it in internal combustion engines is grossly inefficient (its efficiency benefits come from fuel cells), and can't work with existing fuel tanks or most engines. Fuel cells are cute, but hydrogen fuel for them can be produced more cheaply with biomass gasification.

One question for you: What's the "thermodynamic gradient" at the focus of a thousand heliostats? Or of a yellowbark tree?

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/environ/images/bushfire.gif

Yet you're telling us that high oil prices will mean we can neither make nor import solar panels, while we 'crack' liquid fuel for 'ace drilling contractors' in Australia.

What are you smoking?

Xoddam ("Only a handful of countries use fission for energy. None uses it to make fuel.")
The latter is incorrect. In several countries with research and power reactors the fission process is and has been used for reactor fuel via the reprocessing stage and for nuclear weapons fuel.

http://www.VoteNuclearFree.net
http://www.myspace.com/votenuclearfree

Sylvia,
re your remark:

"You don't need to go past the title page to know where it's headed. Radiation warning sign, Chernobyl, men in protective suits."

regarding
"Nuclear Power, Climate Policy and Sustainability: An Assessment by the Austrian Nuclear Advisory Board"
Vienna, Austria, 2007
www.nirs.org/climate/background/austriangovtreport607.pdf

Me, I wouldn't be so quick to judge a book by its cover. Have a look at the table of contents, at the Frequently Asked Questions section (superb and very solid indeed), the preface, summary and, if you care to delve, the articles.

If you're serious about a commitment to nuclear energy, these are criticisms you must face. I thought it was a good idea myself, back in the '60's.

Sir Vivor,

My answers to the FAQ points:

1. While efficiency measures are of use, if they were sufficient, then there would be no need for the renewables that are being developed. Nuclear power plants have lead times in the region of 5 years if the greenies don't get in the way.

2. Peak oil is a separate issue. We would need the nuclear plants even in the absence of peak oil.

3. The fact that nuclear power as currently envisaged is not sustainable is not a reason for not using it while we can. The supposed renewables also have CO2 emissions associated with the construction, as well as inputs that are oil derived.

4. Radiation exists everywhere. The existing coal plants release more radiation than they would be permitted to release if they were nuclear plants. The radiation exposure from nuclear power plants is trivial compared with other exposure.

5. Chernnobyl was of a design that would not be permitted in the west.

6. It hasn't been demonstrated that the existing designs are unsafe. Chernobyl is not a valid example.

7. Tell the 144 people who died at Aberfan, including the 116 children, that nuclear is not safe.

8. This is an issue for regulation.

9. The shutting down of power plants is not relevant to the issue of constructing new ones.

10. This alleges the possibility of leaks during transport. It fails to cite any examples. We cannot guarantee that anything is 100% safe over 1 million years. For example, who knows what downstream effects could arise from large amounts of specially doped purified silicon.

11. Just because something is claimed by some doesn't make it true.

12. Who said transmutation?

13. This is just a simple assertion that the waste problem cannot be solved.

14. The fact that it has been surmised that "that the airplane that crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11 in 2001 was aiming for a nuclear power plant" (I thought it was heading for the White House) doesn't mean it would have caused a radiological issue. Containment vessels are very strong.

Etc.

The topic seems to have drifted off water useage. Is this because all anti nuclear threadists have realised that the article holds no water (sic) and that in order to continue they need to shift the topic?

The arguments given by the anti nuke brigade are usually based on outdated information extrapolated to extremes with conflicting facts carefully omitted. Then they wonder why they suffer from a poor credibility.

The fatuous statements such as "wind power is cheaper than nuclear now and has been for a decade", would indicate that the 800 odd reactors in planning are being built by those who have no interest in saving money and are intent on ruining the environment.

It was once said "you cannot win an argument against faith, only reason."

Of course you're welcome to your opinions, Sylvia. I notice you have put a few simple assertions yourself, with none of the thoroughly researched backgrounding which is offered in the Vienna pdf.

Let’s reprise Question 14 and its FAQ answer, ditto 15 & 16, then skip to 32:

14.
Are nuclear power plants “attractive“ targets for terrorist attacks?
Yes.
Due to the long lasting impacts of such an attack, the effects on electricity supply and their symbolic character, nuclear power plants can be considered to be attractive targets from the point of view of terrorists. It is surmised that the airplane that crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11 in 2001 was aiming for a nuclear power plant.

15.
What consequences could terrorist attacks or military actions on nuclear installations have?
Attacks on nuclear power plants can lead to radioactive releases that equal those of the most severe nuclear accidents. Countless deaths and contamination of large areas could be the consequence.

16.
Are effective counter measures against terrorist attacks or military actions possible?
Technical measures and increased controls at nuclear sites, as well as precautions taken by the police, the secret service or the military can reduce the risks, but cannot eliminate them. Here too, centralised, non sustainable technologies with inherent potential for catastrophe such as nuclear energy have obvious draw backs.

and
32.
Could the problems and risks of Nuclear Energy be solved at the international level?

The risks of Nuclear Energy are structurally inherent. At the international or the European level the risks could be reduced by multilateral cooperation, but it could not be fully abolished. All attempts in this direction are hindered by the nuclear industry that resists stringent international or European regulations and control mechanisms."

Sylvia, my BSc in biology and my reading in systems science and ecology inform my humble opinion that nuclear electricity is unsafe and unsustainable. You’re free to dismiss me as a “greenie”, but I’ve spent my time living downwind of reactors. In these interesting times, I'd rather live downwind of a wind farm.

Again, Sylvia ("existing coal plants release more radiation than they would be permitted to release if they were nuclear plants. Radiation exposure from nuclear power plants is trivial compared with other exposure.")

Coal plants emit radioactive Carbon 14 - present in all living things.
Nuclear plants (and uranium mines) routinely emit radiation into air and water which is IN ADDITION TO natural background levels, and the health effects of this are CUMULATIVE.

Back onto water - the facts remain:
Nuclear: 2.33 Megalitres per kilowatt hour
Coal: 1.9 Ml/kWh
Solar (photovoltaic cells): 0.11Ml/kWh
Wind: 0.004 Ml/kWh (assumes a 250-kW turbine operating at .25 capacity factor and blades washed four times annually).
(sources: American Wind Energy Association and US Department of Energy).

A nuclear power plant requires "per megawatt, up to 83% more water than for other power stations" (Department of Parliamentary Services research paper, 4/12/06).

Water consumption for BHPB's Olympic Dam mine: up to 155 ML daily and, under the Roxby Indenture Act, exempt from the Water Resources Act, Freedom of Information, state EPA legislation and the Aboriginal Heritage Protection Act.

And, of course, despite decades of the industry there is no solution for storing, let alone safely managing, nuclear wastes for the periods required.

http://www.VoteNuclearFree.net

Atom1,

I apologise for my technical misuse of the term "fuel". I was, of course, referring to combustible fuel, such as is used to cook, warm homes, run internal combustion engines and fuel cells, and represents the vast majority of present energy use. Fissionable material is indeed technically a fuel, and transmutation by irradiation in a fission reactor is indeed used to produce fissionable 233U and 239P.

Democritus,

Coastal thermal power plants do not need to use fresh water for cooling purposes. Inland thermal power plants invariably do, though as you point out a somewhat less efficient Rankine-cycle plant could be air-cooled (some highly efficient combined-cyle plants already are). The article gave some statistics based on US, Russian, Canadian and French experience where the vast majority of nuclear power plants use fresh water from rivers or lakes for cooling. You said that the article, or Sir Vivor, I'm not sure which, was erroneously claiming that the entire throughput of cooling water was "consumed" where this is clearly not the case -- actually the statistics for "water consumption" in this situation are for excess evaporation due to increased water temperature, not for the entire flow.

I think this is the third time I've made this point. I have not claimed anything more or less. Many existing nuclear power plants use sea-water for cooling and have negligible fresh water consumption.

Studies make a clear distinction between water use (or "withdrawal") and water *consumption*. I acknowledge that the headline article does not emphasise the distinction -- but I did.

Note that several sources say that coal and nuclear have equivalent cooling requirements and that once-through and cooling tower systems both consume about the same amount of water. Actual experience don't really support this, as many coal-fired stations (usually with evaporative cooling) have a higher upper temperature and are thus more thermally efficient and require less cooling than most existing nuclear plants (which are more likely to use once-through cooling).

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2006-07/07rn12.htm
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/library/pdf/NuclearPowerStation261006.pdf

Atom1,

There is little carbon 14 emitted from coal fired power stations - the trees that formed the coal have been a long time dead. No, the radiation from coal fired stations is in the form of uranium, which exists in trace amounts in coal, and is concentrated by the burning process.

The anti-nuclear brigade want to subject nuclear power to safety requirements (basically, absolute safety) that are not imposed on anything else in our society. Three thousand people were killed in the 9/11 attacks, yet no one's suggested that we should stop building aircraft or tall buildings.

Even if the cumulative argument about radiation is correct (there may be a safe level) we need to look at that in context. The amount of money society can afford to spend on things that relate to health, in particular medical care, depends on how much is left over from other things. Using expensive non-nuclear power technology means that there's less money to pay for medical treatment. It's very likely that the net result is more deaths, not fewer.

I don't see the anti-nuclear groups demanding that carbon sequestration be guaranteed absolutely safe, yet if any of the CO2 stuck into the ground should escape, it has the potential for causing death on a scale that would make a Chernobyl style disaster look like a minor hiccup. Radiation kills slowly. A 2 metre deep layer of CO2 (it being heavier than air) would kill every air breathing thing, on the ground, including humans, in a couple of minutes. No emergency response could deal with such an event.

The Bhopal disaster killed at least 20,000 people, but we haven't suggested that we should no longer have chemical plants, though clearly we've demanded higher safety standards.

A dam failure in China killed 26,000 people from flooding and an estimated 145,000 from the resulting epidemics and famine. Should we stop building dams.

Nuclear power plants have risks, but so do most human activities. We need to manage those risks, but there's no reason to put nuclear power plants into a category all of their own.

Democritus (continued...),

As my claim being "fatuous" that wind power is cheaper than nuclear, I suggest you research the subject yourself.

Capital costs and operating labour costs are surprisingly close, and both industries claim to be reducing them (wind more credibly, as turbine sizes have dramatically increased while new reactor designs remain on the drawing board). Fuel cost and waste-management cost for wind is literally zero, while uranium and radioactive waste management incur heavy unpaid externalities.

Most importantly the *cost of capital* is very different, with nuclear plants having a high level of financial risk. Nuclear plants have planning lead times of (at least) several years even under a sympathetic regime, and construction lead times of at least five years, often more, before any electricity flows. Wind farms can be approved in a matter of months (given sympathetic regulation) and erected piecemeal, each turbine generating electricity immediately.

The financial risk of nuclear power extends beyond planning, construction and possible early retirement to highly inconvenient extended maintenace outages, often unplanned. Wind turbines do fail occasionally, but dozens of others keep working meanwhile.

Nuclear power looks cheap on paper if the sums are done right. The "base load fallacy" and "hard energy path" thinking often captivates planners. If a country is already committed to large-scale radioactive waste management, the marginal cost of more is low unless you actually calculate it over the thousands of years of guarded containment required, which power utilities never do.

The off-the-balance-sheet costs of nuclear power are clear from the responses of people who know and understand risks. Insurers won't touch it with a barge-pole. Investors have built and operated nuclear facilities, but they have always done so with insurance and waste-management underwritten by a government which unconditionally supports the industry.

On the other hand a small subsidy to let renewables compete with incumbent coal generators has investors coming out of the woodwork clamouring to build wind farms.

Governments in turn support nuclear industries for their own reasons, which have little to do with economics, electricity or thermodynamics, and a lot to do with pissing contests.

Xoddam,

Having had a large involvement in power generation and distribution I have been involved in some aspects of design and costing. A study involving looked into various technologies including nuclear. The long term cost of the nuclear option where there is a distance of >1000km from any coal field or gas was very attractive.

Wind power was also relatively attractive, but simply due to the variability was not a viable alternative.

Base load is a concept used in modelling power distribution. Anyone that uses the term "base load fallacy" indicates to me that they are an armchair warrior who has never been in the position to actually make the hard decisions.

Democritus says
"A study involving looked into various technologies including nuclear. The long term cost of the nuclear option where there is a distance of >1000km from any coal field or gas was very attractive."

Does the study have an author, a title, a date of publication? Are conflicting interests declared by the author(s)? Is it peer reviewed?

It's kind of precious, really, Democritus, telling us about your involvement in the power industry, then citing one unidentified study, then calling xoddam an "armchair warrior".

Why not just say "My armchair's better than your armchair?"

As for silly remarks about how the comments have strayed from the subject of the original opinion piece, I have posted links which it would appear you have not bothered to read.

see
"Posted by Sir Vivor, Monday, 29 October 2007 6:40:46 AM"

In my opinion, the items I cited, including the one by the Electric Power Research Institute do indeed hold water (no pun intended?).

It is not hard to establish the lobbying brief of the EPRI - not a lot of antinuclear sentiment there.

I guess off-the-cuff ad hominims are easier for you, and less challenging to your mindset. I wonder if the original Democritus was so facile in his thinking.

Democritus,

If you've worked in the field, I understand that it may irk you to consider the possibility that traditional decision-making processes are flawed. Nevertheless, there are many assumptions which have historically been made in the electricity business that become less and less valid as technology changes, and many decision-makers who choose not to notice this annoying fact.

It must be satisfying to be someone in a position "to actually make the hard decisions". I'm not surprised therefore, that it rarely occurrs to such people that they would have more opportunity to make choices, and could save money overall, if they made *soft* decisions instead.

http://www.smallisprofitable.org/pdfs/SIP_PartOneExcerpt.pdf

Page 21 in this excerpt is particularly relevant to the issue of "base load" versus renewable power. "Base load generators" are unconventionally defined as those with the lowest operating cost, regardless of capital cost *or* availability: whenever they is available, they should be despatched first. Generators with zero fuel cost are "base load" by this definition, intermittent or not.

Walt Patterson's Keeping the Lights On is another brilliant tome in a similar vein: "this is the book that will convince you that you need to re-think everything you ever thought you knew about the future of electricity."

http://shop.earthscan.co.uk/ProductDetails/mcs/productID/790/

Working papers (drafts for the book) are here:

http://www.waltpatterson.org/ktlowp3.pdf
http://www.waltpatterson.org/ktlowp2.pdf

Sir Vivor, it appears I have struck a nerve,

I am sorry that my actual experience does not meet the exacting standards of your cut and paste research.

The study I was refering to was part of a tendering process and as such is not public domain.

The reason I referred to it in the first place is because xoddam, intimated that the reason I didn’t agree with him was that I hadn’t done any research on the issue.

I did read your EPRI document, and wondered why you would quote something so contrary to you position. Other than that the 1970 /80s reactors in the water rich USA were using more water than other power generating sources, it also showed that existing units were going to reduce water consumption by upgrading their cooling technology.

I would question whether you actually read the article, or if you did whether you were capable of digesting information that didn't fit you views.

As BSc biologist I would hope you would know the difference between what you want to know and what you need to know.

If you criticise others in an opinion forum for not providing an adequate bibliography whilst misconstruing the purpose of the ones you do quote, perhaps you should change you nom de plume to Don Quixote.

The term "armchair warrior" I apply to persons who pontificate on topics that they actually have never been involved in. As far as power generation and transmission is concerned the "Don" is in uncharted territory.

You're right, Democritus, you've hit a nerve, and you hit it again when you said

"The study I was refering to was part of a tendering process and as such is not public domain."

"not in the public domain" may bear the stamp of authority for you, but for me, it reads like the label on a patent medicine bottle.

The "commercial in confidence" line hits my funnybone, for sure.

You have not identified your area of interest beyond suggesting that you have worked in the electric power supply industry. But I expect that you would see something quite different in the EPRI report than someone with a biologist's eye would see. I guess you would see something that justifies nuclear instead of renewables.

So which of us, then, might be tilting at windmills?

Taswegian

"I wonder if green utopians realise that steam from hot granite geothermal contains radioactive radon gas."

Yes, the thought occurred to me too. However, the areas of the hottest rocks are in remote areas, and radon has a short half life, so its contribution to the radon level in major inhabited areas would be limited.

The wikipedia article on radon says "The danger of radon exposure in dwellings was discovered in 1984 with the case of Stanley Watras, an employee at the Limerick nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. Watras set off the radiation alarms on his way into work for two weeks straight [...].They were shocked to find that the source was astonishingly high levels of radon, around 100,000 Bq/m3 (2,700 pCi/L), in his house's basement and it was not related to the nuclear plant."

If he hadn't been working at a nuclear plant, it appears likely he would eventually have succumbed to cancer. There's a certain irony there that I'm sure will have escaped the greenies.

Sylvia.

Sylvia, don't for a second assume that all of "the greenies" opposed to the nuclear industry (its inherent complicitness with weapons which makes it far from being a "green", "left" or even "enviro" issue) fail to recognise the dangers posed by Radon 222 gas - emitted from all uranium mines.
In fact I've letterboxed the town of Roxby Downs about it. A half-life of 7 days is plenty enough, carried by winds, to cause lung cancer risk to populations over vast distances.

http://www.VoteNuclearFree.net

I'm always intrigued when nuclear proponents endeavour to air-brush the hazards of radon-222 and allude only to the natural background releases of this radioactive gas.

Radon can can seep through soil and cracks in rock into the air. It can seep through foundations into homes and accumulate into high concentrations.

Rn222 decay emits alpha particles which presents the greatest hazard to lung tissue. A major concern is that radon's very short half life means that it emits alpha particles at a very high rate.

Rn222 also has a habit of adhering to microscopic dust particles where it can be carried significant distances therefore it does not necessarily remain in-situ.

One should be concerned also that radon is the daughter product of radium-226 which continues to generate radon-222 during its much longer half-life of 1602 years.

In addition, it decays to polonium 210 and while not significantly harmful on the outside the body, one would not need to unwittingly ingest this material. We've all read on the radiation demise of Livinenko.

And so while humans must cope with natural background levels of radiation, anthropogenic emissions of radioactive materials, originating from the mining of uranium, have significantly increased Earth's background levels.

And like those emissions, other radioactive releases include the atomic activities of the military, naval, air space experiments and nuclear industries use of RA materials.

Many of those emissions have contaminated our eco systems and insidiously damaged human and animal health - though the pro-nukes remain in denial or simply consider those who succumb to these hazards, as collateral damage.

Established scientists continue to assure us that we have nothing to fear, however the science, with its undeniable facts also assure us that man's fiddling with uranium has simply created a prognosis for a more radioactive earth.

It is evident that Mother Nature is not pleased with humans pillaging and plundering her waste repositories, contaminating her Earth and desecrating her natural mechanisms for environmental harmony.

After all, the entire polluted state of the global environment is a result of we humans digging holes - now that is an established, scientific fact!

I'm always intrigued when anti nuclear proponents endeavour to air-brush the hazards of humans continuing to breed in order to secure economic growth, past 6 billion already unsustainable rapists, murderers and ugly faceless investors in doom.

Radon-222 might kill or injure a few hundred people worldwide from uranium mining. By 2025 "PEOPLE" will have killed 6 billion and NOT with expensive nuclear weapons but with guns, hammers and communicable diseases .. whatever is at hand.

Radon can can seep through soil and cracks in rock, into the air and take decades to kill. Humans just walk in, hit you with a hammer and its goodnight Irene. At PEAKOIL this Rwanda style civil kill mode for survival will seep through the foundations of our society into homes and accumulate survival stashes into high concentrations for modern warlords .

In addition, polonium 210 has killed one person in the history of the world, so does that mean we should not build a total nuclear engineering research and development industry in Australia as a bridge over the troubled waters of PEAKOIL? NO, it means nuclear power is no threat. Nuclear can't harm us and it can save us from the sweeping disorder that will arise when petrol reaches >$5/litre in less than a decade.

Emissions of radioactive materials, originating from the mining of uranium, have NOT significantly increased Earth's background levels. In addition Australia will continue mining uranium. Protesters are ineffectual, effete and CANNOT stop this because WHY? Because they are attacking nuclear energy when they should be attacking governments proposing and fostering economic growth through usustainable populations. In Thermodynamics, 'ENERGY=ORDER". Only Nuclear energy can replace the order of fast growth eCONnomies with a sustainable order that does not rely on overpopulating and destroying Earth's human civilisations.

continued ..

Continuing ..

We have nothing to fear, fiddling with uranium doesn't create a prognosis for a more radioactive earth. RA's are heavy and quickly settle to the deepest ocean trenches or subduction zones, the very place we should position our RA wastes up to a 2040 phase out of nuclear in favour of Geothermal power sources.

It is evident that Mother Nature is not pleased with 6.5 billion humans pillaging and plundering and contaminating her Earth and desecrating her natural mechanisms for environmental harmony. She will not tolerate 9billion and Rwanda has shown us how she will deal with this ugly, ugly human threat.

After all, the entire nuclear cycle is part of mother nature. That nuclear energy will help clean the polluted state of the global environment as a result of we humans defecating all over the planet and its oceans is an established, THERMODYNAMIC scientific fact!

And remember aUSstralia doesn't need millions more questionable immigrants to help fight off PEAKOIL invaders, the reality is that we just need a handful of nuclear weapons to DETER any such invasion.

Any Australian who doesn't support a Total-nuclear-Industry within a decade is just a DICK.

"After all, the entire nuclear cycle is part of mother nature. That nuclear energy will help clean the polluted state of the global environment as a result of we humans defecating all over the planet and its oceans is an established, THERMODYNAMIC scientific fact!"

How or when will a required minimum of 1,000 nuclear reactors reduce the pollution of the global defecation by humans?

How will the "THERMODYNAMIC scientific fact(s)" cope with 1 billion gallons of water per unit reactor per day, multiplied by the potential of 1,000 nuclear reactors?

How or when will these reactors reduce the enormous carbon based emissions from other mining industries (gold, aluminium, nickel, lead, etc etc) and the resultant contamination of entire townships and the ongoing desecration of our fragile eco systems?

How or when will Australia, with its proposed 25 reactors, reduce the 2 billion, 2 million kilograms of CO emitted by motor vehicles last year?

How or when will emissions be reduced from the steel and iron manufacturing industries - up there with coal burning emissions?

What do you make of the DOIR's briefing note on Lucas Heights which said:

"Be careful in terms of health impacts - don't really want a detailed study done on the health of Sutherland residents. Don't say 'no extra risk' - say 'acceptable risk'."

Why are communities not privy to an accurate account of the self-regulated, self-reporting nuclear industy which currently operates only on extrapolations from their "computer modelling" to assess radioactive releases to soil, air and water?

Why did the European Commission threaten to take the British government to court in 2004 for failing to account for hundreds of tonnes of dangerous radioactive waste at the Sellafield nuclear complex?

Why does the World Bank deny lending money around the world for nuclear projects?

"The required 1000 nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.11C in a century." (John Cristy - Member IPCC.)

Any Australian who wears the nuclear "kaep" of concealment must surely be regarded as "TRIPLE DICKS?"

Dickie, I expect that KAEP hasn't a clue about much beyond his own patent opinions. One of his/her more splendid ideas involves Australia in launching rockets from the mountains of New Guinea to establish energy transmitters between the orbits of Mercury and Venus, to harvest solar energy to save our planet. Yes, and KAEP alleges he/she knows a lot about thermodynamics.

As for responding any more to KAEP, I am saving my breath. With persistence, I could probably teach a budgie to count to 5, but no-one's ever going to teach the dear little thing to add and subtract.

Radon 222 causes about 32000 cancer deaths per year in the USA, mostly from radon trapped in houses and in miners (not only uranium miners) working underground.

As Radon 222 has a half life of less than 4 hours, and its most toxic daughters of less than 1 hr, and nuclear plants hold the gas for 100s of half lives, unless you work directly in the uranium cycle, the chance of Joe Bloggs getting cancer from the Radon 222 emitted from the nuclear industry is probably of the order of getting lung cancer from someone smoking outside 100km away.

Radon does not stick to dust particles, only some of its daughters (<1hr half life). There is more risk to your health from inhaling the dust than the radon.

The risks of the nuclear industry are well enough documented without having to make up any.

Radon 222 causes about 32000 cancer deaths per year in the USA, mostly from radon trapped in houses and in miners (not only uranium miners) working underground and this is constant background radiation and has ZIP to do with proposed safe Australian PBR (Condom jacketed)nuclear reactors or any safe proposed nuclear research programs.

Effete scare campaigns as a distraction from Howard's penny-pinching, immigraphantic, up-the-USA-garden-path-economic-collapse Fiscal mismanagement are the Libs's current blitzkrieg stratagem so Shadow Minister would have to be a Liberal supporter IMHO.

Current unsafe yellowcake export contracts which Shadow is too weak to ever stop must be supplanted by safe PBR export industries with strong research into oceanic subduction zone disposal of PBR pebbles that will have additional plastic coatings to suppress any gaseous RAs escaping.

The chance of Joe Bloggs getting cancer from the Radon or Krypton emitted from the nuclear industry is probably of the order of getting lung cancer from someone smoking outside 100km away.

Radon & Krypton do not stick to dust particles. There is more risk to your health from inhaling the dust.

The risks of the nuclear industry in Australia today are well enough documented. Although ridiculously insignificant compared to human fight-to-the-death overpopulation and defecation of the planet, all Nuclear industry risks can be reduced and in some cases, totally removed.

But without a Total-Nuclear-Industries policy in Australia, which must remain effectively always under public (NOT PRIVATE) control, those documented risks will never be REDUCED.

Shadow Minister

I agree that it is the radon progeny which adheres to dust particles. However, without a parent, there is no progeny. The daughters of Rn222 are the radionuclides responsible for lung cancer.

When radon gas is allowed to build up in an enclosed space, such as a mine shaft or basement, the radioactive hazard increases enormously because of the build-up of radon progeny.

Conversely, when radon gas migrates through the atmosphere, the solid radon progeny are deposited on the soil and water below, entering into the food chain and hence the bodies of birds, animals, fish and insects.

"As Radon 222 has a half life of less than 4 hours, and its most toxic daughters of less than 1 hr,....."

Well you get a FAIL from me for that blunder, Shadow.

Polonium 210 has a half-life of 138 days

Radon 222 (Rn222) has a half life of 3.8 days.

If at first you don't succeed, why go on and make a fool of yourself?

Dickie,

Ignorance is bliss and if youv'e got it you flaunt it. Obviously neither reading nor maths are your strong points.

I said the "most toxic" progeny i.e. the ones recognised as actually causing death in the general populace. The very short half life of the 4 most toxic progeny mean that radon inhaled has a high concentration of radiation in the lungs from which nearly all deaths occur

After the most radioactive isotopes decay, they become lead 210 with a half life of 22 years which comparitively is inert, so the amount of polonium 210 is so small that its effect is not measureable.

As for ground take up, radon is continuously emitted from the ground in quantities that would dwarf any present or future emissions from human involvement, and even that is dwarfed by other radio activity from solar radiation, carbon 14, etc.

The scope of the threat is covered in the following link (which does not use too many big words) or maybe Kaep could give you some pointers.

http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon_occ.pdf

So, KAEP, ("Nuclear can't harm us and it can save us from the sweeping disorder that will arise when petrol reaches >$5/litre in less than a decade") where's YOUR plutonium powered Delorean?

http://www.VoteNuclearFree.net

Atom235,

Where's YOUR plutonium powered Delorean?

Huh?

I'm the one with the Nuclear Fusion powerd telephone box .. and the P....E..A.K-KAEP agenda.

The only reason my telephone box is Fusion powered is because years ago I made a strong investment in Total-Nuclear-Industries that gave me the ENERGY, Thermodynamic ORDER/information/Knowledge and the ongoing nuclear expertise proficiency required to develop it.

Ya get the point?

Yes, I get the point(s).
1. That you have vested interests in the nuclear industry. Thankyou.
2. You insist on taking this issue to your own agenda - that of impracticle and theoretical mass use of nuclear cars.
Mmmm..

At least, re climate change, we might acknowledge that 36% of global GHG emissions is attributable to electricity, with almost 2/3 of sources being TRANSPORT, deforestation, industry and agriculture (International Energy Agency).

Which, again, only leads into the fact that even IF nuclear were sustainable, insurable, not weapons proliferation complicit, or THIRSTIER than any other form of power generating, it still ignores 64% of the human induced GHG issue.

http://www.VoteNuclearFree.net

PEAKOIL? Nuclear power and increased laser-fusion research can save the world. It will BRIDGE PEAKOIL add clean energy, lower global entropy, increase thermodynamic ORDER andconsequently increase human intelligence to a point where we all KNOW that humans and not some foolish greenhouse warming notion is destroying human cibvilisation.

Climate Change? One child per family policies in all nations and Engineered wetlands to filter current human sewage & wastewater emissions can stop the most egregious thermodynamic imbalances in the world's ocean surfaces that are the direct cause of climate change.

Global warming? Is merely a side effect of human caused dynamic oceanic pollution profiles. In fact while the Earth is warming we know from thermodynamics that that the Earth is healthy and not converging to a deadly thermodynamic EQUILIBRIUM. The problem is that the heat circulation and biological absobtion mechanisms in vast expanses of high heat capaity ocean surfaces are rapidly deteriorating proportionate to exponential increases in human numbers and coastal migrations.

The following ??scientific?? pro-greenhouse-warming article

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/can-science-really-save-the-world/2007/11/06/1194329224846.html

suggests lowering global-solar-energy-input and polluting oceans and skies to stop greenhouse warming. Thermodynamics tells us both measures will lead to a higher entropy or more disordered Earth. Both will hasten planetary thermodyanamic equilibrium and the end of mankind's ability to perform WORK and create a future.

The article ignores human population growth. Scientists failing to comprehend Thermodynamics-101? They are faux-scientists paid by oil companies and global corporate executives who want bigger populations,markets and profits in a new world FEUDAL order. Its PROPAGANDA. The article gives false hope. It will prevent necessary population control programs and squash GEOTHERMAL, NUCLEAR FUSION and MERCURY ORBIT power generation programs necessary to propel mankind into the 22nd millenium and beyond as FREE people.

The article and its backers are a crime against humanity because under their stupid global domination schemes a 2025 PEAKOIL will lead to Ricci flow dynamic hurricanes of terror that will kill 7 billion people and put the remaining 2billion back to a PolPot yearzero.

Go 4Growth? Where's the sense?

Go 4Nuclear & stabilise populations NOW!

And if its not PBR its NOT on?

re Shadow minister's statement about "toxic progeny":
It's best to look at the whole uranium decay chain, and appreciate the difference between radioactive damage and chemical toxicity.

The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research provides a good reference for the whole uranium decay chain. I've copied part of it below.

The major exposure concern is alpha radiation, which can be stopped by a very thin sheet of paper. If it is released inside the body, it is largely "stopped" by being absorbed into living tissue. The damage done to the cell's genes explain how radiation causes cancer, mutation and birth defects. Alpha radiation is far more potent at causing cellular and chromosome damage than X-rays or gamma rays. Beta radiation is also more potent than X radiation. This helps explain the thousands of cancer deaths attributed to Radon, by Shadow Minister.

It's important to note that every radioactive atom of Radon 222 will eventually decay into an atom Polonium 218, and so on, down the decay chain, until that atom finally becomes stable, as non-radioactive Lead-206.

Polonium 218 is another alpha-emitter. Its chemical toxicity is not, to my knowledge, a problem for people inhaling Radon gas. But its alpha radiation is roughly as energetic and damaging as that of Radon 222. If Polonium 218 is absorbed into the body rather than breathed out, there is better than 99% probability that is decayed after 10 half-lives, or about 30 minutes.

The same goes for the other short-lived isotopes. After about 5 hours in the body, the radioactive atoms that have decayed there, from Radon 222 to Lead 210, will have delivered up to 5 shots of radiation to living cells.

See:
http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/uranium.html

Radon-222
(half-life: 3.82 days)
by alpha decay
to
Polonium-218
(half-life: 3.11 minutes)
by alpha decay
to
Lead-214
(half-life: 26.8 minutes)
by beta decay
to
Bismuth-214
(half-life: 19.9 minutes)
by beta decay
to
Polonium-214
(half-life: 163 microseconds)
by alpha decay
to
Lead-210
(half-life: 22.3 years)
to
Bi210, then to to Po210
and finally to
Lead-206
(stable)

Inside the body, polonium-210 is extremely damaging. Alpha radiation is harmless outside the body, but it is twenty times more damaging to living cells inside the body than the more penetrating types of atomic radiation such as gamma and beta radiation.

Unlike radium, which concentrates in bones and teeth, polonium-210 attaches itself to the red blood cells, and is carried to all the soft organs of the body in turn.

There it damages the liver, spleen, bone marrow, lymph nodes, thymus, gastrointestinal tract, and gonads.

The Inuit have larger amounts of polonium-210 in their bodies than any other North American residents because of the “lichen ? caribou ? human” food chain.

Since these measurements were never made before 1960, it is not possible to say how uranium mining in the Northwest Territories and Northern Saskatchewan may have contributed to the levels of polonium-210 in caribou meat and hence in the bodies of the Inuit people.

Measurements of radioactivity in caribou meat began in 1960 primarily to investigate the high levels of cesium-137 deposited on lichen from the atmospheric testing of atom bombs in the American southwest.

After Chernobyl, levels of cesium-137 went up in both reindeer and caribou herds (Figure 12). But the high levels of polonium-210 were a bit of a surprise.

Exposure to alpha radiation at non-lethal levels was already well documented as a cancer-causing agent. In the case of polonium-210 the number of organs at risk is especially large.

But radiation-induced cancer generally takes decades to show itself, as the damage that is done to individual cells is multiplied and spread by the slow process of cell reproduction.

Contd...

Short half-lives are hardly relevant when a parent iosotope continues to breed progeny where, in spite of the progeny's short-half live its radioactivity can continue ad infinitum.

The massive use of water to feed uranium mines is not the only problem with this industry. It is the "replenishment" cycle of the decay chain contained in tailings or waste which has interested me:

The radioactive materials left behind in the uranium tailings are among the deadliest poisons known to science: radium-226, that killed so many of the dial painters; polonium-210, radon gas, which remains one of the deadliest cancer-causing agent ever encountered; as well as thorium-230, lead-210, and others.

The danger posed by a radioactive substance is not indicated by its weight or its volume, but by its degree of radioactivity. Radioactivity is measured in ”becquerels”. The number of becquerels is the number of radioactive disintegrations that take place every second.

When uranium ore has lain undisturbed for hundreds of millions of years, then all of the uranium decay products will have exactly the same radioactivity as uranium-238.

For example, if a 10-kilogram rock contains 1,000 becquerels of uranium (about one gram), it will also contain 1,000 becquerels of radium-226, 1,000 becquerels of polonium-210, 1,000 becquerels of radon, and so on.

The total radioactivity of the rock is 14,000 becquerels, since there are 14 different radioactive substances in the “decay chain.” Once the uranium has been removed (two varieties) the residues still have about 12,000 becquerels of radioactivity left.

To make matters worse, most of the uranium decay products are constantly replenished by the on-going radioactive disintegration of thorium-230, which has a 76,000 year half-life. This means that only half of the atoms of thorium-230 will disintegrate in 76,000 years.

Thus the amount of radium, polonium, and radon in the tailings will remain almost the same for thousands of years, and will only be reduced by half in about 80,000 years. So how does one keep millions of tons of radioactive sand out of the environment for 80,000 years?

Dickie,
re:
"After Chernobyl, levels of cesium-137 went up in both reindeer and caribou herds (Figure 12). But the high levels of polonium-210 were a bit of a surprise."

The inclusion of a reference to "Figure 12" implies a link or other source. Can you provide details?

As for your question,
"how does one keep millions of tons of radioactive sand out of the environment for 80,000 years?"

Ask the engineers who plan the mines and their systems. I would not give much credence to their answers

Xod,Viv,Dick,

1. Australia is mining and will mine yellowcake. Your fruitless anti-mining arguments (90% of your posts) are wasted. At least go-with-the-flow and research solutions to the problems you argue.

2. As Australia is up to its neck in nuclear exports, why not go the extra PBR step? There are no Proliferation, safety or security concerns because the bloody pebbles are wrapped in carbon/cement and plastic, can't leak, are a waste of time to enrich, can't cause meltdown and can be sunk into subduction zones to be recycled to the Earth's interior. And no, Krypton can't bubble out of a plastic-disposal-coating.

3.Russia,UK,US led in nuclear reactors. They made mistakes. Current techs still make minor ones. New technologies won't. PBR is the safest and must be implemented and continually researched here. Your argument's like we shouldn't have planes because the Wright Bros and their contemps had so many crashes. How picayune-pathetic!

4. Living cells are Thermodynamic Machines(TMs). Thus Humans as collections of cells are >complex TMs. Civil populations like Australia are also >>complex TMs.
That means, despite anyone's best efforts, a massive Civil-loss of oil/energy production will create a STANDARD CHAOTIC Thermodynamic-Civil-response.

Now I have shown the Applied Math (Ricci flow theory) that governs such chaos and how the solution set is homologous to well-known tropical-hurricane-dynamics.

I have shown the TEPA endpoint analysis that predicts the
3D-magnitude/direction of such chaotic-hurricane-events and a nasty Endpoint between Asia&Australia. The timing of such events, locked to $petrol, will begin to go-chaotic between $5&$10/litre.

I have also indicated that human-history and most recently Rwandan-history gives us an insight into the mechanics of human chaos-induced-self-destruction. Make no mistake, history like many current events IS obscene. Sorry to the squeamish. Welcome to the human race! I don't agree that Australians should be media-molly-coddled. The ugliness of modern or past events is REAL. I am not proud of the self-obsessed,incestuousness of Australia today. If we go nuclear->geothermal and survive PEAKOIL it will make us more caring, tolerant, and grown-up as a nation.

Mene-mene-Tekel.

Australia must go Total-Nuclear-Industries-->Geothermal or PERISH along with 7 billion other people by 2025.

Its-all-THERMODYNAMICS!

Re:
"1. Australia is mining and will mine yellowcake. Your fruitless anti-mining arguments (90% of your posts) are wasted. At least go-with-the-flow and research solutions to the problems you argue."

There we have it, folks, the grand and cavalier gesture toward our current environment.

This person, who seems proud of profiting directly from investment in the nuclear fuel cycle, thinks it's up to the rest of us to clean up their mess.

A shame that someone with such an active imagination can't focus on cleaning up after themself.

But have a look at this:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-07-02.asp

"Canada's Environment Minister Sued Over Unreported Mine Waste
TORONTO, Ontario, Canada, November 7, 2007 (ENS) - Two conservation groups launched legal action today against Canada's Minister of Environment seeking to force the reporting of what they claim are "hundreds of millions of kilos of toxic mining waste being kept secret from the Canadian public." "

"The public interest law firm Ecojustice filed the lawsuit in federal court on behalf of MiningWatch Canada and Great Lakes United, an international citizens coalition that works to preserve and restore the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River ecosystem on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border. "

"The complaint alleges that Minister John Baird broke the law when he directed mining companies to ignore their legal responsibility to report millions of kilos of pollution from their operations under the National Pollutant Release Inventory."

(snip)

Some might be taught to wash their own nappies, after all.

Sir Vivor

Canadian mining companies have the ignominious reputation for hit and run mining methods in other nations.

It appears their only aim is to pillage, pollute and p#*@s off!

http://www.foei.org/en/publications/pdfs/Barrick_final_sml.pdf

One of these companies, revered in Australia for its contribution to our economic "prosperity," and also the world's largest gold mining company, has uranium tenements in this country.

Do you believe the "Fawlty Towers" regulators in this nation would be capable of enforcing any EPA or DOIR acts for environmental breaches caused by those operating a myriad of new uranium mines?

By the way, one of those companies which owns U tenements and awaiting the green light to proceed, only last year dumped a mere 8 tonnes of mercury over the community in which they conduct their operations, without even a smack on the hand!

Olympic Dam's contract to extract millions of litres of water daily, free of charge, from the GAB, is in place for the next 70 years.

One can only become concerned (not excited like Kaep) at the prospect of dozens of new Uranium mines also getting in for their chop in the not too distant future where they will unashamedly conduct their radioactive operations in close proximity to unsuspecting communities.

I have made it clear to all but a cretin. I DO NOT WANT NUCLEAR POWER. I Want a KAEP (Kyoto Alternative Energy Protocol) that includes a 50% component of GEOTHERMAL power and space based power because they are the lowest entropy almost infinite energy sources at our near term technological disposal.

If certain people on this forum could add 1+1=2 they would KNOW I advocate nuclear power because there is no chance of oil companies relinquishing necessary geothermal drilling technology while they are in the box seat and making squillions.

Now 1+2=3, I thus also have to advocate uranium mines. And 2+2=4 I want suggestions for improvements in mining standards and safety rather than just mindlessly slagging them without any hope of stopping them.

These half-wit nuclear slaggers haven't got the brains to know that I and they are a anti-nuclear minority group and have no say in the matter. The difference is that I know my limitations, the science of the opportunities that await and thus am able to present alternate scenarios to the majority for consideration. At least I have a chance of making a difference and saving a LOT of lives in the coming 2 decades.

A minority group saying 'no nuclear because don't like it and I say so' in a world where majority opinion is railroading back to nuclear power is silly and rather quaint, like Mr Mgoo. But it is full of vanity and accomplishes nothing.

Oh Waldo!

re:
"These half-wit nuclear slaggers haven't got the brains to know that I and they are a anti-nuclear minority group and have no say in the matter."

Well then, I guess if the gentle reader has a principled antinuclear stance, along with a careful eye to his/her stocks in the uranium mining companies, that's two bob each way.

It puzzles me how someone who pretends to understand about the mathematics of chaos can also pretend to be powerless. I guess it's all about pretending, eh?

"A minority group saying 'no nuclear because don't like it and I say so' in a world where majority opinion is railroading back to nuclear power is silly and rather quaint, like Mr Mgoo. But it is full of vanity and accomplishes nothing."

Kaep, Please support the "majority opinion" with some credible references. Which referendums or other credible sources are you referring to?

Or does your 1+1 equation simply refer to governments around the world, promoting nuclear, who are ordering nuclear reactors for their countries, despite the objections from the people of those countries?

I do believe you have had little or no experience with government agencies for the environment, or industry, or the agencies' senior bureaucrats who manipulate and corrupt the processes necessary to protect the environment and public health.

In Australia, these agencies have been captured by pollutant industries. I hold these agencies and the polluters responsible for the ignominious fact that we are the largest polluters per capita in the world.

This fact is damning evidence that the EPA Acts, established decades ago, supposedly to protect the environment and human health, have been breached by industry 24/7 - 52 weeks/yr, and those breaches are encouraged by our ignorant state and federal politicians who wouldn't know a VOC from a sock.

Most of our eco-systems are now seriously compromised by the criminal activities of our past and present governments and their senior bureaucrats who continue to use the excuse that we must have economic prosperity. Economic prosperity for whom and at what cost?

The "Polluter Pays" clause (included in all state and territory Acts) has been totally ignored and we, the people are now being asked to pay for their illegalities. Worse, the pollution is increasing.

Nuclear power and particularly a resurgence in uranium mining, will do nothing to alleviate the corruption which is endemic at the big end of town.

And the Mr and Mrs "Magoos" are culpable by their silence but then they are known only for their myopic views and besides, good men are also notorious for doing nothing, are they not?



http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/07sa.html

Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to explain why everyone else is wrong and you are right.

The reason that governments all over the world are looking at nuclear can't be economics, therefore they must all be corrupt.

The land reclamation plans the mines have in place must be wrong therefore the engineers must be lying and the EPA must be incompetent. Puleez!!

With respect to the original thread, the waste heat from the nuclear process is now being used to produce fresh water from sea water at several installations around the world. With a small drop in efficiency, the power plant can be both a net producer of power and fresh water.

This completely puts to the sword the argument that nuclear is a waste of fresh water.

As such, a plant has been proposed for Adelaide, which due to the need to pump gas and transport electricity would be financially very attractive, the cost of water would be about half of that from traditional desal plant (about 60c / kl). However, this is unlikely to proceed as Aus consumers prefer their power to come from fossil fuels.

Some links to read up.

http://www.wonuc.org/desalination/index.htm
http://www.romawa.nl/downloads/ASME_IGTI_2004-53337-desalination.pdf
http://www.uic.com.au/nip74.htm
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3313tamilnadu_desal.html

Shadow Minister,
If you want to find a pack of mongrels barking mad and baying at the moon, look no further than the Larouche inner circle in the US. They have been around since the late '70's, at least, and haven't improved with age.

For example, I have read items in their local broadsheet, put out by the Citizen's Electoral Council, suggesting that La rouche has high connections with the Democrats. No-one in either the US Democrats or Republicans, and no-one with any smarts or credibility or native caution, would be seen within cooee of L Larouche.

LaRouche is walking, talking snakeoil. As for his Executive Intelligence Review, that title is a world-class oxymoron, and about the best inspiration you or anyone will ever get for free out of L Larouche.

Why not stick with a nuclear-free Australia? Have a look at this one, foreshadowing non-radioactive electricity and desalination, safe enough to live downstream or downwind of.

http://www.oceanlinx.com/

If you have money to invest (I don't) I would put it here. OceanLinx has recently listed on the London Stock Exchange.

I wonder about Larouche's declarable interests - - Maybe you can Google them up for us, eh Shad?

SV,

I was looking for existing and prospective sites for Nuclear desalination, LaRouche would appear to be a particularily odious personality, but I have found similar references from the IAEA etc.

And the other links are still valid.

Oceanlinx plants are small and are quoted as with a peak capacity of 1.5MW.

They then quote average city consumptions of 20kWhr / day and 350l water per day. Listening to the ABC I was lead to believe (subject to correction) that the average consumption of water per house hold was close to 1000l/d and electricity of 50kWhr.

Combine this with a ratio of peak to average generation of 5:1 (similar to wind) and the number of house holds that each unit could supply would be at best 120, and allowing for peak consumption, closer to 40. So to supply Sydney's domestic power needs 35 000 units would need to be built. Double this for the industrial needs.

Between wind and waves, the entire coast line 1000km either way would be choked with wind and wave generation just to supply Sydney, let alone Brisbane, Newcastle etc.

These technologies as they stand cannot meet our needs, and until they improve, we must either choose fosil or nuclear fuels.

You ask why not a nuclear free Australia? The answer is only if we abandon any pretense of trying to reduce carbon emissions. This is a stark choice that I guess the new Labor gov will have to make.

Just out of curiosity Shadow Minister, are you aware of of the current trends in solar thermal or geothermal energy supply (tapped into the electricity grid) to power large populations?

Find below the opening paragraphs of an article published two years ago, describing the outcomes of energy efficiency measures as an approach to reducing carbon footprints and hence projected water requirements.

“More Profit with Less Carbon; September 2005; Scientific American Magazine; by Amory B. Lovins; 10 Page(s)”

“A basic misunderstanding skews the entire climate debate. Experts on both sides claim that protecting Earth's climate will force a trade-off between the environment and the economy. According to these experts, burning less fossil fuel to slow or prevent global warming will increase the cost of meeting society's needs for energy services, which include everything from speedy transportation to hot showers.”

“Environmentalists say the cost would be modestly higher but worth it; skeptics, including top U.S. government officials, warn that the extra expense would be prohibitive.”

“Yet both sides are wrong. If properly done, climate protection would actually reduce costs, not raise them. Using energy more efficiently offers an economic bonanza--not because of the benefits of stopping global warming but because saving fossil fuel is a lot cheaper than buying it.”

“The world abounds with proven ways to use energy more productively, and smart businesses are leaping to exploit them. “

“Over the past decade, chemical manufacturer DuPont has boosted production nearly 30 percent but cut energy use 7 percent and greenhouse gas emissions 72 percent (measured in terms of their carbon dioxide equivalent), saving more than $2 billion so far.”
“Five other major firms--IBM, British Telecom, Alcan, NorskeCanada and Bayer--have collectively saved at least another $2 billion since the early 1990s by reducing their carbon emissions more than 60 percent. [snip]… ”

“These sharp-penciled firms, and dozens like them, know that energy efficiency improves the bottom line and yields even more valuable side benefits: higher quality and reliability in energy-efficient factories, 6 to 16 percent higher labor productivity in efficient offices, and 40 percent higher sales in stores skillfully designed to be illuminated primarily by daylight.”

Complete article at:
http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/Lovinsforweb.pd

Interesting but little known and little appreciated; The Kyoto Protocol charts a soft energy path:

"As industrialised nations take on commitments to limit CO2 emissions as required under the Climate Change Convention (Kyoto Protocol) and/or implement national legislation, some electricity industries (utilities and nuclear advocacy groups) and certain nuclear power producing countries have suggested that nuclear power is one of the central means to combat climate change.

This lobby considers nuclear a key technology in achieving climate protection commitments. This is not, however, consistent with recent decisions in the global community. The finalised rules of the Kyoto
Protocol exclude nuclear from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). This does not, however, have a direct impact on national decisions to run existing plants or install new nuclear facilities anywhere in the world."

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/solutions/energy_solutions/nuclear_power/index.cfm