"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