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