Atom1;
Base load from wind ? No matter how widespread the windfarms
there will always be a time when the wind drops over say 75 % of the
wind farms. Even if it just halves in speed the loss of power is to
the cube root of the wind speed.
The implications of that bit of maths is dramatic.

Would you enter a lift under those conditions ?
Would you be a passenger in an aircraft landing at night if the
landing lights might fade out ?
Would you like to be on an operating table when the wind drops ?

Power is not guaranteed now but the mtbf is good enough that the above
risks are reasonable.
It will not be possible to make a reasonable guarantee that the power
will be available at full load 24 hours a day.

If you read the link you gave us, you will see that they do not give
a guarantee either. They just rely on load shedding.

Sylvia

I am in agreement with your suggestion, however, I do not believe that coal fired conversion to gas will happen. You will see from my posts on earlier threads that I have advocated for gas fired power plants at least for an interim period which significantly mitigates releases of CO2.

I am not au fait with the economics of our gas reserves, however, it appears that this industry is more intent on exporting this product than supplying the domestic market.

What is of concern is that 5 new coal fired plants in australia last year were given the nod with more in the planning phase.

http://www.cana.net.au/nomorepollutingpower/NoCoalNationalStatement.pdf

"With respect, I think other things than pollution by radioactive materials may share responsibility for increased cancer and chronic disease rates: contaminants from decaying plastics and other chemical agents; respiration of microparticulate pollution from diesel engine exhausts;"

Xoddam, I am also in agreement with your statement above. Last century saw the manufacture of many hundreds of synthetic chemicals - many carcinogenic, mutagenic and/or teratogenic. This is an industry which also functions in secrecy.

Therefore, why do we continue down that path of further polluting human health and our eco systems and the environment when the nuclear industry, apart from RA emissions, releases massive amounts of lethal chemicals. Uranium mining and milling for instance emits the following hazards:

Molybdenum, arsenic, nickel, selenium, ammonia, hydrazine, copper, zinc, chromium, noble gases, dioxins and furans, hexachlorobenzene, hydrogen fluoride, SO2, CO2, VOCs, PMs, benzene, sulphuric acid, CO, hydrochloric acid, lead, mercury, NOx etc.

Last year Olympic Dam alone emitted 2,400,000 kgs of PM10 and 1,500,000 kgs of NOx.

Reports on the release of radioactive substances, for some reason, are not for public viewing. Why?

Curiously, Australian companies are not required to test for the far more lethal PM 2.5 (particulate matter.)

Canadian U miners produce up to 18,000,000 tonnes of waste rock each year and their VOCs emissions in 2004, were the equivalent of 300,000 cars on the roads annually.

Will we too, take this dead-end path?

http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/ClearingAir_UraniumMining.pdf

One would think from all the Hooray on this and other pages that the Uranium mining industry was the only one that emitted pollutants into the atmosphere, or was the only industry responsible for deaths due to its emissions. I would suggest that the participants in this forum do some solid research on this subject and then come back to us before engaging in this blanket condemnation of the nuclear industry.

David

There is no doubt that the human reproductive cycle MUST be included in the price of our journey into the future. We CANNOT survive as a civilised population in a 2025 world of 9 billion people crowded into limited coastal cities and all of us wanting per capita energy usage far greater than even that of today. It is absurdist bunkum to consider otherwise.

Besides, if China can successfully introduce one child per woman policies then so can the rest of the world, including Australia. As petrol prices continue to rise and drought worsens, this will become a highly charged issue and ultimately a reality.

Finally, a brief flirtation with nuclear power may also be part of the price of our future, if $billion investments in Geothermal power are not soon forthcoming.

Those resisting nuclear power on the grounds that existing mining is an environmental tragedy are merely powerless dupes who do not have the mental accuity to see that Total-PBR-Nuclear-Industries are the only way to clean up the current radiocative mess. Anti-nukes can't stop Labor or future coalition parties from U-mining. Both parties are very greedy, self-serving machinations who will NEVER stop mining Uranium especially while growing world demand is creating record prices for yellowcake and will create even higher prices for much safer, value-added PBR fuels and ultra high tech mini reactors.

Continued nuclear=free=australia squatting about U-mining on this forum are a waste of space. In obfuscating serious issues for Australia's future they are a threat to this nation's security.

"other things than pollution by radioactive materials may share responsibility for increased cancer and chronic disease rates.."

This is not in dispute for certain cancers. But why add avoidable additional radioactive contamination to the mix? Remember - exposure to ionizing radiation is CUMULATIVE and ADDITIONAL to natural background radiation.

David ("One would think from all the Hooray on this and other pages that the Uranium mining industry was the only one that emitted pollutants") Not at all, however this topic is "Nuclear vision - from inevitable to invisible" -- the uranium industry being its source.

KAEP, I'm not even going to entertain your irrationality that "Continued nuclear=free=australia squatting about U-mining on this forum... are a threat to this nation's security" when there exists proven indirect and direct links to nuclear military and the ineffectiveness of the safeguards system.

"John Carlson, Director of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, has admitted that Australians will not inspect Chinese nuclear facilities to ensure compliance with controls safeguarding non proliferation. He also confirmed that international inspectors would not visit enrichment or conversion facilities in China to ensure Australian uranium did not end up in nuclear weapons." - The Age, (5/9/06).

While (China) had enough uranium resources to support its nuclear weapons program, Madame Fu said China would need to import uranium to meet it's power demands." - An admission from China's Australian Ambassador that Australia supplying uranium to China would support their nuclear weapons program by diverting their own uranium reserves for this purpose. ('The Australian', 2/12/05).

http://www.icanw.org

"I would suggest that the participants in this forum do some solid research on this subject and then come back to us before engaging in this blanket condemnation of the nuclear industry." (VK3AAU)

VK3AAU

I can offer information on my research. What part are you interested in?

I was born and bred in a mining community. So were my parents, my grandparents and my great-grand parents arrived in that community in 1897.

Of course, "only" some 1600 have been killed on mines in my small area last century. That does not include the thousands who died from silicosis, pneumonicosis or other mining-related diseases. Who cares? It wasn't you or me.

However, I shall refrain from posting off-topic though my research ensures me that the mining of uranium mining is the most environmentally destructive.

"Continued nuclear=free=australia squatting about U-mining on this forum are a waste of space. In obfuscating serious issues for Australia's future they are a threat to this nation's security."

KAEP

You may continue to bury your head in the sand. The fact is that only some 30 countries have nuclear reactors. I have already reminded you that there are 194 nations on this planet.

In addition, 18 of those countries with nuclear energy are developing nations and according to the UIC (06/07), only 3 Western countries have "planned" for any new reactors.

Naturally they are the Western countries who are among the largest producers of RA hazardous wastes - Canada, America and Japan.

Planning for new reactors is a good way for these countries to recycle the tonnes of waste that are lanquishing in and contaminating those nations, particularly now that our Australian sycophants have expressed a desire to offer reprocessing assistance and repositories on Australian soil.

You fail to acknowledge that a nuclear future for Australia (or anywhere else) is too little, too late. Building just one reactor could take up to a couple of decades.

Your argument for PBR's is ridiculously inane since Mother Nature does not make a habit of procrastinating.

Let's face it KAEP. You're impressionable and factually a member of the minority.