Dicky

The fact: the 30 countries having nuclear reactors contain 90% of the world's people and are all gearing up to buy OUR Uranium. You only remind me you are a Labour party shill. The Labour party seems content to sit on the fence with Yellowcake exports. Rudd must quit Uranium mining OR go Total-PBR-Nuclear industries. Rudd will be ousted at the next election if yellowcake exports continue.

That only 3 Western countries have "planned" for any new reactors is a baldface lie.

RA hazardous wastes are IN-SIG-NIFICANT, compared to the human lust to KILL for the survival of their families when petrol prices go over $5/litre.
Naturally, as you display such ignorance I predict you would be one of the worst offenders.

Planning for new PBR reactors is a good way for ALL countries to make NUCLEAR POWER more efficient, cost effective and safer than ANY other power generation scheme than GEOTHERMAL. Your concerns about new technologies creating greater risks don't add up. They are based on ignorance.

I acknowledge that a nuclear future for Australia is too little, too late. But using it as a bridge over PEAKOIL while we perfect unlimited hot rock GEOTHERAL power is both viable and sensible.

Building just one LARGE reactor could take up to a couple of decades, sure, but you already know I propose 1-10MW mini PBR units that could be in service for cities, shipping and the military within 5 years. Your allusion to my supporting the Switkowski report is just PROPAGANDA.

Your argument against PBR's is ridiculously inane because you have NO argument. ?? " Mother Nature does not make a habit of procrastinating."?? what a joke!

Let's face it Dicky. You're no more capable at propaganda or psycho-analysis than you are at researching science topics.

I hope that other readers of this forum get as big a laugh from your posts as I do.

*ITS ALL THERMODYNAMICS*

Atom1: PBR fuels CANNOT be used in WMDs. If you participate in the discussion please have the decency to do the research first.

Wow! KAEP's robust thermal dynamics have won the day - for the opposition with an own-goal.
Definitely no call for a Pebble-bed Reactor.
Just keep KAEP stoked, and he will generate enough steam to provide all the energy needed.
We had some reservations about you KAEP, but now your stamina is no longer in doubt.

KAEP, don't assume for a second that I've not done several years of (non-vested interest, unpaid) research first.

As for PBRs and nuclear weapons:
- The nature of the fuel pebbles may make it somewhat more difficult to separate plutonium from irradiated fuel, but plutonium separation is certainly not impossible.
- Uranium (or depleted uranium) targets could be inserted to produce thorium targets could be inserted to produce uranium-233.
- The enriched uranium fuel could be further enriched for weapons*
- The reliance on enriched uranium will encourage the use of and perhaps be used to produce highly enriched uranium for weapons.
- And in China's pebble bed test reactor, "What to do with growing piles of nuclear waste is a problem that not even this reactor can solve". - 'Catalyst', ABC TV, Feb 2007.

* "From the point of view of someone concerned about arms control, is any enrichment facility suspect?"
"Oh, of course". - Physicist C. Paul Robinson, former director of Sandia National Laboratories, also led nuclear weapons programs at Los Alamos and served as a U.S. arms control negotiator in the late 1980s. (On Line News Hour,May 27, 2005.)

As for PBR reactors being "a good way for ALL countries to make nuclear power more efficient, cost effective and safer than ANY other power generation scheme than GEOTHERMAL" - Wow, I've not known solar arrays or wind turbines to have been proven terrorist targets. You?

Anyway, it's all a moot point. Even a doubling of nuclear power globally would reduce CO2 emissions by just 5%, taking 10-15 yrs for a reactor in Australia (Ziggy's report, though unwanted and voted OUT) plus typically a further 10 yrs for a single power reactor to recoup its energy input costs.

Atom1

"plus typically a further 10 yrs for a single power reactor to recoup its energy input costs"

In this context, that's rather misleading. The 10 years includes the energy inputs required for decommissioning. If one accepts the validity of the study that produced the figure, a nuclear plant is in energy credit 3.5 years after commissioning.

"That only 3 Western countries have "planned" for any new reactors is a baldface lie."

KAEP, You will need to redirect your fervid wrath to your buddies at the UIC.

http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm

"Building just one LARGE reactor could take up to a couple of decades, sure, but you already know I propose 1-10MW mini PBR units that could be in service for cities, shipping and the military within 5 years."

Five Years? No, no, no KAEP. In your dreams, boy. Do your research on the Eskom project.....please?!! Lawsuits, delays, delays!

"RA hazardous wastes are IN-SIG-NIFICANT, compared to the human lust to KILL for the survival of their families when petrol prices go over $5/litre."

KAEP, May I suggest you seek counselling for your homicidal tendencies?


Sylvia

The Yucca Mountain repository project is now more than 10 years overdue with a 35% increase in costs to those estimated in 2001.

Figures estimate that the blowout is in the billions.

In addition, whitehouse submissions reveal that over 75 years, $300 billion will be required for the clean up and decontamination of existing civil and military sites.

Equally as bad is the industry's failure to plan for the prospect of new reactors and the size of Yucca Mountain is now deemed inadequate and so a second one is being proposed.

Liability settlements are being made to utility companies for the delays - all adding to huge blowouts in budgets.

In addition, concerns are now being expressed because of earthquake faults in the vicinity.

You don't really believe that governments and industry are capable of accurately assessing final costs for nuclear energy, do you?

And surely you don't believe they have the consumers' interest at heart?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8675&type=0

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:UzeLsd4btPYJ:www.lvrj.com/news/10257277.html+Yucca+Mountain+cost+2007%3F&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:MEY_EAWufA4J:physicists.org/fyi/2007/110.html+Yucca+Mountain+estimated+total+expenditure&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/06/970629235257.htm