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The arguments given by the anti nuke brigade are usually based on outdated information extrapolated to extremes with conflicting facts carefully omitted.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.