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.