I agree that Australia is morally bound to deny uranium that may be used for weapons. With 40% of world uranium resources Australia can exercise considerable leverage. We would have both more control and value adding if we were involved in other facets of the nuclear fuel cycle such as enrichment and waste disposal. However I'm not sure that India really has adequate alternatives to civilian nuclear power, given for example that India's steel industry already uses Australian coal. Therefore they must pay the price for the position they have taken. This will send a clear message to the other countries that are thinking of going nuclear (eg Jordan, UAE) or reviving a stalled nuclear industry (Italy); the message being that Australian uranium is only to be used for power generation.

the actions of politicians are designed to help themselves, their internal and foreign policies must first present some personal advantage.

promises made by one politician have no power over his successor, who often sees profit in overturning promises.

consequently,the honor among nations ruled by politicians is the honor of politicians, empty.

the purpose of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is to restrict this military power to those who already hold it. it was sold to the world as ethical by the 'promise' of the nuclear powers to disarm. the hypocrisy is so old as to be unremarked, but it so real as to disarm all discussion. the reality is, those that don't have atom bombs are at the mercy of those that do. the only rational response is to get this power, or ally the nation with someone who has it.

rudd is a politician, not a saint, or even an ethical person. he will pursue policies that advantage himself and his party. anyone who imports moral imperatives to the political process is not merely naive, but actually dangerous to society: such a person is telling children to play in the street.

During the cold war the term "realpolitik" was used to describe negotiations to reach a compromise a good deal away from ideal, but far better than with no negotiations.

Rudd I believe would prefer to restrict India from obtaining uranium, but given the reality of other countries with less uranium than Aus but still substantial quantities, the restrictions placed on India as a result of the agreement are better than no agreement.

TR would do well to allow the cloud of rhetoric disperse and allow some of the light of reality to play on the situation.

There is in my mind a mighty credibility gap between reality and the exaggerated, almost hysterical rhetoric of TR.

To start with India is a stable democratic power and one friendly to Western ideals. Of course this may change sometime in the future who knows? The reality is that in the ‘here and now’ trade between India and Australia is great for both counties. Uranium is ubiquitous in the earth’s crust. There are several other non Australian suppliers of uranium including the states of the former Soviet Union.

TR would have read the recent report on nuclear energy chaired by Dr. Switkowski. I draw attention to the chapter on health and safety. Clearly in terms of Joules of electricity generated nuclear is among the safest of all for base power generation. Switkowski table 6.1 places nuclear in terms of direct fatalities as being well below coal, oil, natural gas LPG, and hydro.

I was interested to read an article in the New Scientist of 9th Aug by Mattson and Calabrese on the subject of hormesis. An old idea that is applicable to radiation exposure. Briefly the claim is that small exposures of a toxin are beneficial. From a regulatory point of view it is not possible to define the levels at which hormesis operates. The point I make here, with out being over technical is that hormesis is one of several factors that render predictions of death from low radiation exposure very rubbery.

So when TF writes:
“…….radioactive fallout killing tens of millions, global climatic consequences would be severe and persist for 10 years. “

He is clearly going beyond the evidence and is inventing a political horror story.

You know, Litvinenko looked really healthy to me.

anti-green, if you believe this perhaps you would care to place some radiation by your pillow and drink poisoned water. Increase the sample size to your family. It must be a long term study, of course. Do whatever you want to prove your point and document it.

Honestly people should realise that people like anti-green here are out there by the hundred or thousand. People like him have no problem implementing policy that could contribute to radiation poisoning of our country or countries across the world. Radiation doesn't go away morons. Once it's in, that's it.

As for the NPT it's worthless and any rhetoric coming from nuclear equipped countries or those signatories to the NPT is empty. The threats of nuclear attacks on other countries by those with nuclear weapons has shattered any illusions amongst the international community that nuclear weapons should be in the hands of an elite who overrule everyone else. The USA particularly has created nuclear weapons for general usage in warfare. Not as a last resort. The USA policy is now to use them whenever it chooses. Everyone around the world has to understand the implications of this.

We all know that supplying India with nuclear material that they may guarantee will not be used for weapons, merely frees up more of the current imported nuclear material that has no such restrictions for use with their weapons programs.

I have had many radiation exposures during my lifetime of 75 years. I have experienced exposures from background, as a research subject, occupationally exposure and with increasing age medical. I also remember being given a sample of monazite sand that I carried around. But this proves absolutely nothing.

You must look at diverse epidemiological studies, such as comparison of mortality from high and low backgrounds regions, industrial studies, Japanese atomic bomb studies, medical radiation and so on. Further you must carefully analyse each study for bias in selection of subjects and controls. Confounding and interactive factors- such as smoking, infective agents, chemical carcinogens etc. too have to be evaluated.

Many studies are ecological that is where doses to individual subjects is unknown and a population mean exposure is assumed or estimated say by distance from a nuclear facility. These studies are valuable but can not be considered as definitive. On the other hand random controlled experiments in human populations are neither practical nor ethically possible.

The largest human population exposed to up to several Grays is of course the Japanese. Even in this group below an exposure of 100 mGy few or no cancer incidence can be attributed to radiation. The RERF update 2008 attributes 0% cancers to radiation below 5 mGy and 2% in the range 5-100 mGy.

The Alice Stewart papers on in utero radiation at exposures of the order 10 mGy has been severely criticised by ICRP (publication 90 section 8.2).

BEIR 7 gives the following explanation of risk for exposure 100 mGy or less. For simplicity subtleties as such as age and sex distribution of the exposed population are ignored. 1 in 100 may develop a radiogenic cancer and 42 others would be diagnosed with cancer. Of course there is no way of recognising the radiogenic case.

On the other hand there are many experts who contribute to internet discussion groups such as “radsafe” or “know_nukes” who argue against a linear extension of risk down to levels below say 50-100 mGy.

I would like to draw attention to anti green's post of 21-8-08 that Nuclear is safer for power generation, - it is only safer if you assume the waste problem will somehow still be solved after over 50 years of failure.
Much safer than nuclear is Geothermal Hot Rocks, (GHR )which generates power using heat stored deep in the earth, (see info link http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/faqs.html)
which produces no radiation or any other pollutants, no toxic waste, is cheaper than Nuclear and far more widespread, is easy to ramp up and down so ideal to work in with Solar, Wind or any variable source, and for which the technology is already developed and being used.
In fact we and India and America and China could all replace coal fired power stations let alone nuclear, with GHR, The skills of the work force would be very transferable.
In Australia we have enough GHR resource to provide all our current electrical requirements for 7000 years, - much longer if we put solar, wind, etc into the mix.
Interesting that Google has just put 10 billion towards GHR.
Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.
Kuranda

Geoff Thomas obviously has information that the rest of the world doesn't.

The capacity of power generation or the cost he is claiming is not even claimed by the exploration company.

That the heat to be used, is generated by nuclear decay is OK because it is "natural". Pumping water down to the rocks and then using the steam that results from this "natural" nuclear reactor has its own risks. Deep mines such as in South Africa, do not permit the water pumped from the mines to be used for human consumption or irrigation due to the level of radioactive particles.

Modern reactors do not allow any of the liquid cooling the reactor to come in contact with "external" water.

In the meanwhilst, please check your facts.

Geoff Thomas

The management of nuclear waste and spent fuel is of course a technical subject in which I have no experience. I can only refer you to web documents.

Radioactive waste is allocated into three broad categories; Low level, Intermediate level and high level waste. Categorisation depends on physical, chemical and biological properties of the material.

There is no high level waste in Australia as yet. Since this is the spent fuel from power reactors.

I understand that the intermediate level waste from the ANSTO reactor is stored on site or sent to overseas fuel reprocessing plants before return to Australia.

The Switkowski review has pointed out that the volumes of waste are small compared to many other industrial processes and has been safely managed for decades.

The World Nuclear Association –waste management in the nuclear fuel cycle makes the following points.

• Nuclear power is the only energy-producing technology which takes full responsibility for all its wastes and fully costs this into the product.
• The amount of radioactive wastes is very small relative to wastes produced by fossil fuel electricity generation.
• Used nuclear fuel may be treated as a resource or simply as a waste.
• The radioactivity of all nuclear wastes diminishes with time.
• Safe methods for the final disposal of high-level waste are technically proven; the international consensus is that this should be deep geological disposal.

I will for reasons of space limit my remarks to HLW.

HLW is either the spent fuel itself in fuel rods or waste separated after reprocessing. A large typical power reactor is said to generate about 27 tonnes of waste per year or about 3 cubic meters.
Initially the HLW waste is stored in water ponds on site. This serves both as a cooling and shielding function. Remember radioactivity decays exponentially, so after about 40-50 years heat and radioactivity are fallen to one thousandth (0.1%) of initial level.
Subsequent treatment with or with out reprocessing consists of vitrification and deep geological sequestration.
[Continued]

[Waste Continued].
“The radioactivity of nuclear wastes naturally decays progressively and has a FINITE radiotoxic lifetime. The radioactivity of high level wastes decays to the level of an equivalent amount of original mined uranium ore in between 1000 and 10,000 years. Its hazard then depends how concentrated it is. Compare this to other industrial wastes (e.g. heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury), which remain hazardous indefinitely.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A NOTE ON A FEW COUNTRIES.

BELGIUM: Reprocessing. Central waste storage at Dessel. Construction of a repository to begin in 2035.

CANADA. Direct Disposal. Repository site search from 2009 planned for use by 2025.

CHINA: Reprocessing.Underground disposal from 2020-2050.

FINLAND Two fuel storages in operation.

FRANCE: Reprocessing. The Bure underground site will be available from 2015-2025.

Plans are advanced in Germany, India, Japan, Russia South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In my view as a lay person in this area, the evidence is clear. The technology to handle waste safely and successfully has been available for decades. In fact the nuclear industry has been very successful in this sphere.
There is a plethora of useful and fact full information to be found on either The World Nuclear Site and/or the Uranium Information Centre Site.
However, one outstanding question remains: How to get the message across to the general public that the processing and storage of spent fuel is a solved problem?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One other thing I not opposed to the geothermal experiment

Responding to Shadow Ministers claim that I have superior knowledge, - when Geothermal plants already exist in over 20 countries, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power) and in Australia there are more than that number of exploring companies, (But this is Geothermal Hot Rocks, or GHR - also called Enhanced Geothermal) one has to be more specific about what company it is that said about capacity or cost, because the company I quoted, http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/faqs.html definitely claims cheaper than Nuclear - particularly when the cost of Nuclear waste disposal is factored in.
Claims of 7500 years, not 7,000 are to be found in their background material and really these claims are extremely conservative, we all know we are sitting on a thin layer of Earth's crust under which is billions of megatons of liquid rock, - probably from the formation of the earth and gravitational stresses, - and possibly some radioactive decay, - thankfully over millions of years ago, not like the current mad ideas, putting nuclear reactors on geological fault lines as in USA or Japan.
Great idea to check out my link to Geodynamics, Shadow Minister where you will find that there is no contact between the water in the GHS cycle and the generator, (no risks!) but it has been tested to be not radio active in any case. Knowing about GHR, why would you support Nuclear, there is not enough anyway, and if ever we get to outer space we will need all our fissionables then.

Geoff,

Most Geothermal energy production occurs near volcanic activity. The GHR technology is as yet untested, and remains a theoretical possibility. The proposal that it will be cheaper than nuclear was not made in the link you provided.

The site they are using is the "best" site, and still there are few takers. The fact that GHR consumes vast quantities of water, and where there are hot rocks generally the sites are devoid of water and far from energy users.

The claim that it could replace the base load supply of Australia, is naive at best, let alone that of the world.

The green movement is replete with grandiose statements but very short of reality. Making hard choices is something they avoid.

Dear Shadow Minister, the Geothermal Hot Rocks (GHR) I have been talking about, (the which you would have seen if you could have stirred yourself to look at my informative link,
http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/faqs.html
is as far away from volcanic activity as you could possibly imagine, - ie in the ancient (4.5 billion? year old) granite massifs under Australia, - supposedly the worlds oldest continent.
2/ The water, highly available from shallower deposits from the Australian Artesian Basin, is totally recycled, just as in a Nuclear reactor, - in a way one could say that the Nuclear cycle is the black version of the GHR cycle, and the redeeming feature is GHR can use that technological development, so fraught with danger in the Nuclear situation, in a positive way.
Before dismissing the very real solutions, - tried and tested, that GHR provides, (although admittedly still new) and not only easily base load for Australia, but for probably most countries in the world, you should do some research, - not accuse me of grandiose statements, but actually do that research your self, - what have you to lose? only Nuclear waste, - surely you do not want that dreadful legacy to our descendants?
This reality is something all the Nuclear grant applications should fall to the side of.
Cheers,
Geoff

Geoff,

I have read the link you provided apparently better than you have. You evidently did not read what I wrote.

GHR is not tried and tested, in fact it has yet to provide a single economically viable site.

Your projections of what might be possible on a small scale as a solution to the entire world's energy requirements can be described kindly as grandiose.

What irritates me are wild predictions of well meaning greenies who have neither the facts nor the wherewithal to grasp either the practicalities of their claims or the implications to the economy of implementing policy based on their fantasy.

> We all know that supplying India with nuclear material ... merely frees up more of the current imported nuclear material

By that logic, any power generation technology that "frees up" Indian Uranium would be helping its nuclear weapons development.

So no coal, no oil, no solar panels, no windmill sales to India.

And behind this is the assumption that India is interested in building an enormous nuclear arsenal.

India tested a nuclear device in 1974 but did not weaponize until Rajiv Gandhi ordered development in 1988. India had no actual nuclear weapons until that time. Pakistan actually had deployable weapons years before India. In spite of having enough Uranium to build thousands of bombs, India choose not to.

The Indian 500 MWe Fast Breeder Reactor has a core loaded with two TONs of Plutonium (just 5 kg are needed for a weapon). India clearly chooses electrical power over weapon development. It could have used this Plutonium for military purposes instead.

Dear Shadow minister, it is always a worry when folk in a discussion stoop to insult as that usually means they have run out of facts, and sad to see you using the insult grandiose as you have.
With my comments about tried and true technology, there are two elements to the Geothermal Hot Rocks, one is using heat to generate electricity, - that is indeed extremely well developed, and as I mentioned the GHR uses precisely the same generation system of a closed unit and a heat exchanger as is done in a nuclear reactor power station and indeed many other situations, so that part of your accusation is false.
The other half is the deep drilling techniques, - Oil companies have already gone down over seven kilometres in already existing situations, so that half is also tried and tested.
The Geodynamics company is now drilling their 4th well, the previous ones tested their assumptions about hot fractured rock, and proved absolutely spot on.
All they and others need now is to replicate what they have already done and build as many power stations as are necessary to provide Australia with baseload power and close all the coal fired stations, - it is not grandiose, the economics are pretty straight forward, the money willl go round and round in Australia and not affect our balance of payments, but will stimulate our internal economy. Workers in the coal industry will have skills usable by the GHR industry, the real risk of massive damage from global warming will be avoided.
There is nothing "wild" about the solid and indisputable information concerning this recent development within the Geothermal industry which solves the past problems thereof.

Both China and India are expanding their consumption of fossil fuels at an alarming rate.

India already has sufficient fissile material to make more nuclear weapons than it is ever likely to use in any nuclear exchange (100s) so the premise that uranium sold to India is enabling the production of further weapons is simply political posturing by the Rudd gov. The decision of the US (leading the charge against nuclear proliferation) to sell refined uranium to india puts the final nail in the coffin.

The greens simply oppose anything to do with uranium. Once this is realised, the rest of their arguments can be seen purely as a smoke screen.

Geoff,

Sorry if you find the term grandiose insulting, unfortunately it is the most appropriate adjective to use, where world changing predictions are made without substance.

The fact that the wheel is tried and tested technology is no foundation for claiming that solar powered cars are tried and tested.

Generation using steam is the simplest and easiest part of generation, the majority of any power plant is dedicated to producing and feeding the turbines with energy in a usable form.

Thus the car analogy. Having wheels is one thing, making them go round is the hard part.

Shadow Minister, hmm, a bit tricky arguing from analogy, (also with name calling) one can end up looking foolish, - in this instance it would not be correct to take the car away from the wheels, there is an already existing Geothermal industry established in over 20 countries, generating .5 of a percent of the total world energy requirement, - the Kalina heat exchanger Geodynamics is using is the same as an old plant in California, it would be a more correct analogy to talk of changing the petrol source for the car, - in this case simply getting it deeper, where incidentally there is an enormous amount more of it.
I guess you couldn't know your analogy would be false because you know almost nothing of Geothermal Hot Rocks, (GHR) Also known as Enhanced Geothermal systems, -(EGS) interesting if you would say this fellow, Dan Reicher of Google.org is Grandiose, when he says "EGS could be the 'killer app' of the energy world,". "It has the potential to deliver vast quantities of power 24/7 and be captured nearly anywhere on the planet. And it would be a perfect complement to intermittent sources like solar and wind."
Well no doubt who said it you will keep on believing it to be grandiose, until you educate yourself properly, and that includes admitting Nuclear is failed technology, after 50 years, can still not dispose of the waste,
It is grandiose to think Nuclear can power the world, - it can, but for 10 years only, - a bit shortsighted what! It is not grandiose to know that GHR can power the world for thousands or even millions of years in co-operation with the sun, you just have to jack-hammer the scales off your eyes and get out there and look around.
We should not sell our uranium to the Indians or anyone else, but leave it in the ground till we develop space travel, - when we will actually need it.

Geoff,

Rather than relying on your source i.e. Dan Reicher of Google.org (renowned source of profound pronouncements), I prefer to use CSIRO or the MIT report as the basis for my opinions. This is coupled with personal experience in designing and building power generation.

I have never said that there was not an established geothermal industry, rather that the existing established ones rely rather on close proximity to volcanic activity. The EGS in the US also mostly relies on the proximity of magma to the surface.

The MIT report predicts that the US "could" generate up to 100GW of power by 2055 this way based on available sites (mostly nearly hot springs etc) which in the US is a drop in the bucket (less than 2%)

The economic viability depends on the temperature, depth and permeability of the rocks. The higher the temperature the higher the efficiency and less water used in condensing. Steam below 200C is pretty much worthless in this regards.

Given the paucity of the Australian geothermal resources and their distance from either water sources or load, the cost of generation is likely to be prohibitive.

Rather than taking offense when someone punctures your fantasy, I would suggest that you read articles from real sources rather than IT gurus and company promotionals.

Many countries seem to be investing heavily in the "failed technology" of nuclear power as their energy experts have misguidedly not listened to Dan Reicher.

If and when GHR technology suddenly leaps forward and becomes economic and plentiful I will eat my hat, but I don't see it happenning in my life time no matter how much you want it to.

Dear Shadow Minister, there is nothing like information to stir up the conservatives who hate change, even if not to change is to die.
Hence we will now go further along the information road to see why Geothermal HR is superior to Nuclear, - firstly your admission of the proven 100 GW based on available sites, - this is not EGS despite you said it, but to proceed,
A GW (Gigawatt, is a thousand megawatts, (gigawatt - noun (abbrev. GW) a unit of electric power equal to one billion (10 to the power of 9) watts)
Your claim that the USA hot springs capacity is 2% is also incorrect, - according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use_in_the_United_States , the USA Nameplate capacity, (which is arguably more than actual capacity, is 1,075174 megawatts, or 1,000 gigawatts, so the occasional hot springs could produce 10%, which is incidentally the same as the current Nuclear capacity in the USA.
When you get into the serious GHR, (EGS) sites, then it goes off the Terra scale.
Interestingly your hated Dan Reicher of Google.org as I quoted, was announcing 10 million dollars for mainly quantifying the U.S. Geothermal resource, - the Australian resource, now believed to be enough for over 7,000 years, is already researched through oil drilling records. - Your old records, showing only hundreds of years, still exhibit capacity way beyond nuclear (http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/index.html) and even probably coal, although we cannot afford to keep burning coal as you know.
Bringing GHR power from eg. Innaminca to the National Australian grid, already running 360,000 volts up most of the east coast, to Adelaide and Tasmania, is not a big problem, particularly given the latest installation of HVDC power transmission, already in America and Europe at 1 million volts with plans now for 1.5 million volts, - technology has moved on and most large power systems are not only superceded, but in need of replacement.
Lets use the new technology and include GHR access.

Geoff,

This is like talking to a child. Don't you even read the links you are posting?

The link you quoted gives the average consumption in the US as 3300 GW (3.3TW)which would put the capacity in excess of 5TW to allow for peak etc. Which as I said would give the projected capacity as about 2% or a seventh of the present installed nuclear capacity.

And this is based on technology that is predicted to be available in the next couple of decades not proven as you attributed to me.

As there is a push to reduce CO2 emission by 50% by 2050, this drop in the bucket is not the answer.

I am not disputing that there is a huge energy store in the earth, just that most of it is practically unuseable for the foreseeable future.

I hate neither you nor Dan Reicher, I simply believe that you have made wild claims with no supporting evidence, and completely contradict the findings and predictions of those bodies with the intellectual muscle and resources to predict these things.

HVDC and other high voltage transmission systems which you so glibly toss into the mix are designed for transmission of large amounts of enery long distances, as the step up and down costs a fortune, as do the lines and insulation. This is not economic for small amounts. The 500MW GHR plant being proposed in a decade would probably cost less than the transmission line to Adelaide with HVDC.

Again insults instead of intellect, you have made a serious mistake between capacity and consumption, - better you not quote figures if you do not even know the units, be a good boy go back to the link and look at the name plate capacities as I said, you will find I am absolutely correct.
A trap for young players is to confuse capacity with consumption but briefly, capacity plus time is consumption, if the capacity figure does not have a time figure after it, it is just capacity, - if I draw 2 kilowatts from my Solar system for 1 hour, I have used 2 kw/hrs, for 24 hours I have used 48 kilowatt hours. 100 gigawatts for 24 hours is 2400 gigawatt/hrs, which is 876,000 Gigawatt hours per year. - that is quite a sum just from the occasional hot springs in USA, but nothing like the real capacity for GHR / EGS in the USA.
For Australia, I have attached a map of the Oz GHR resource as per the later figures, (It is a poster I did for an exhibition on solutions to Global Warming we had here in Cairns) http://www.empower.iig.com.au/gone/Geothermal2pages.pdf - you will notice that there are patches quite close to Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, etc, but where you did not understand the importance of the Cooper basin is that there is a huge resource there, it would be sensible to rebuild all of Australia's generation capacity currently done by Coal in that one area with the one HVDC line to the connection with the Eastern grid.
All the technology to do this already exists, it is far superior to Nuclear and doesn't declare war on our children, all it needs is the political will to make it happen and the highly corrupt and self interested Nuclear industry to just go away and stop trying to pull the wool over people's eyes that Nuclear is any sort of answer, - had you followed up this link, http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/index.html
you would know that anyway.
Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.
Kuranda.

GT,

Reading the posts, and links, and using the car analogy:

I have a commodore with a speed capacity of 200kmph. I drive the 900km to Melbourne in 10hrs varying from 120km to 60km through town.

Capacity = 200
peak = 120
average = 90

The average consumption in the US is 3300 GW yet you claim the capacity is 1000 GW.

This does not add up.

Geoff,

What a monumental blunder. 4+4= 2?

I assume your background is liberal arts, as it certainly isn’t maths oriented. (Probably theology, as it is a requirement to believe fervently without proof). My 11 year old son has a better grasp of the terms average, peak and capacity. I would recommend you repeat year 4.

The figures I quoted were from multiple websites incl the US dept of statistics, and as Democritus observed, it is physically impossible to have an average consumption higher than capacity.

If you look at the hot patches near the larger cities, they are deep, not as hot as the site at Cooper Pedi, and the geology is not yet determined to be suitable.

In all your posts you have yet to indicate a single economically viable GHR plant in production similar to what you have been trumpeting as the answer to all our woes.

As the only present technology that can replace coal as a base load is nuclear, the holy grail of the green movement is to find an alternative. While I applaud this search, the danger is that we will find ourselves in 2020 with 95% power generated by coal and looking at 2050 with the empty promises of yesteryear.

In 11 years we could have 20 large nuclear plants and reduce CO2 by 50%

The way we are going we will have 0% reduction by 2020. The greens must choose to lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Answer to Democritus and Shadow Minister, apologies for delay as only 2 posts allowed in 24 hours, and only 350 words, refer to Democritus’s last post.
Dear Democritus, your confusion is understandable,trying a short answer.
You have a car capable of 200kmph, the maximum requirement on your journey was 120, therefore you had an excess capacity of approx 67%, (had you done that with your house insurance your insurer would have had you for dinner) which in a car may be OK, as long as you don’t have to pay extra for fuel, taxes, or purchase price, or if you did you did not mind for other reasons. Of course your consumption, at whatever speed you went, would remain unchanged at 900 kms.
However, you can readily see that a capacity of 90kmph would have not been enough, - that would have then become your maximum, and the whole journey would have taken longer as the minimum speeds would have dragged down the average.
In a Power supply system such as the national grid, however, the consequences of running out of capacity, are more severe, - part of the grid may have to be shut down, or loads disconnected, (in the old days we had “brown outs” and many countries with less rigorous voltage controls still do) which is not happy making.
There are many ways in which this difference in capacity and consumption can be illustrated, - I am a renewable energy system designer, supplier, installer, this is my daily life, so I am constantly explaining to customers the difference between capacity and consumption, - as I said in my last post, the difference is time, - capacity has no time, consumption is over time.
In a Stand Alone Solar system, for instance, capacity is determined by the size of the Inverter, consumption by the battery bank, a small inverter will not run a pump, a large one can run a welder, although it may use the entire amount of energy in the battery bank in an hour or two, leaving no TV for the kids that night.

Dear Shadow Minister, it is a logical absurdity to claim a totally unknown debating opponent has a literary background and therefore his maths are wrong, it is also on the shady side of moral.
By now you will have read, (or if not go and read it immediately) my reply to Democritus's Question, (not observation) in which I further explain the difference in the engineering world between capacity and consumption, - remember, we were talking of capacity and consumption, not your eleven year old's contribution of average and peak.
To respond however, to your comment on the incredible Australian Geothermal Hot Rock resource,
http://www.empower.iig.com.au/gone/Geothermal2pages.pdf
You claim the areas near the cities are deep and not as hot, but had you read the second page of the link with the map, you would have seen they are judged by the same criterion and if they are there, they meet that criterion. Then you lied and said they were not determined to be suitable. - there are many companies developing those so-called unsuitable sites and the one near Newcastle was proven to be particularly suitable but continually blocked by the state Govt. (-probably to protect the coal companies,) otherwise that field would be already working on a large scale.
Your final point, that this particular form of Geothermal electrical generation has not actually got a working plant, while true for only a very little longer, is as true as to say that the current planned new generation of Nuclear reactors have yet to be built so there can be no surety that they will not continue to leak, melt down, crack, release clouds of radioactive gas, kill their workers etc as in so many reported (and how many unreported, is it true Lucas Heights has a pipe leaking into the local creeks?) all over the world, - and still not solved the waste problem, just planning to increase it.
There is a growing understanding all over the world that Geothermal HR is the answer, - Quicker, much safer and cheaper than Nuclear, and do-able now,
Hooray.

GT,

My presumption of a liberal arts degree was based on your mathematical ineptitude not the other way round, however, based on your inability to read or comprehend what others are saying, this first assessment was too generous.

My perception was that the delay in answering my previous post was due to the large crow you had to digest after claiming that the US’s capacity was lower than its average consumption.

I am well aware of the thermal map of Aus, and my comment that the site had not YET been determined as suitable, was due to other geological issues not covered by the polemic article you linked to.

As the NSW labor party is trumpeting its contribution to geothermal exploration, the claim that they are blocking it to safeguard the coal industry reeks of paranoia.

Basic thermodynamics shows that theoretical efficiencies drop drastically as one approaches 70C (the temperature at one can expel waste heat). As the steam extracted is at a low pressure, it cannot be used directly to drive the turbines and is used to generate steam via heat exchangers.

500C n= 55% (Modern coal plants generally achieved = 48%)
400C n= 49% (Modern nuclear plant generally achieved 42%)
200C n= 27% (Probable temp of process steam via heat exchanger from Habanero probable efficiency = 17%)
160C n= 19% etc

Which means that the vast majority of heat extracted needs to be expelled requiring massive cooling towers and water consumption, or even more massive air coolers which drop the efficiency further, and are hugely expensive.

The technology using ammonia due the low temperature is extemely dangerous and probably poses a far greater risk to the employees than any nuclear facility. For this very reason it was phased out as use as a refridgerant and why it is not used in present generation plants.

Dear Shadow Minister, - Oh you are so ignorant it is painful, - despite having it proved that in fact the capacity of power generation is much less than the yearly consumption, you continue to believe your ignorant comments to the contrary, I can only suggest you contact some one in the electrical engineering trade if you have the courage to be proved wrong, again. - Probably one of our universities could help.
I suppose seeing you are so wrong there it is not surprising you have it wrong about all other facets of this discussion, - the blocking of the NSW field was some years ago now, - unlike you the labour Govt. seems to have been able to learn and change.
The efficiencies you quoted, given your total ignorance it is understandable you got it wrong, - the heat harvested waste water is pumped straight back into the ground to pick up more heat, as is clear in those simple pictures that you have looked at, - as I said earlier, you need to chisel the scales off your eyes.
It has however been informative that a pro nuclear person is so ignorant, - despite the evidence from that link I sent you, that there is very little adequate grade uranium so nuclear can not be the answer, that almost every one now knows the waste problem has not been solved, and possibly can never be afforded to be, you still adhere to that suicidal option. Apparently you believe that that understanding just turns all those poor misguided souls into greenies. - A very self protective argument but total hogswash.
What is necessary at this time is to waste no more money on the failed nuclear non-option but to develop as quickly as possible our enormous Geothermal Hot Rock resource and not only leave the uranium in the ground but as quickly as possible close our coal fired power stations and re-employ all those workers to the Geothermal industry.
The fact that Geothermal works beautifully with Solar, Wind, etc means a whole new area of productive employment awaits.

GT,

In spite of your name calling I will try and use small words to explain what you have missed. As Democritus observed, your claim that capacity is less than the average consumption is like claiming that a car with a max speed of 30kmph can get an average speed on the trip to Melbourne of 90kmph. The key word you have missed is average.

I would suggest you catch up on some of the eduction you missed such as high school. Or simply ask a 10 year old to explain the finer details. Ignorance is absence of knowledge, having the inability to grasp the knowledge when it is in front of you is stupidity.

As a engineer who has designed and built big generation plants (not the tinker toy solar systems you dabble with) I would be most fascinated in how the system runs without any waste heat, as you have just found a way to defeat the second law of thermodynmics.

What next? breaking the speed of light.

Reading your posts it has become increasingly obvious that your sources of information consist mostly of political sites and pamphlets, where reality plays little part.

Fortunately business and government have taken a more measured response choosing to invest in research, and not make unsubstantiated claims.

GHR has potential, but until an economically viable site is established and connected, claiming it as a solution to all the worlds power needs is ludicrous

Australia's contribution to international displeasure over Russia's occupation of additional areas of Georgia has come in the form Australia's reconsidering supply of uranium to Russia. This may be symbolic and temporarary in nature as Australian uranium miners would not want to lose the Russian market. Australia also does not want to be seen as an unreliable supplier particularly in view of the Australian Government's decision, earlier this year not to supply to India.
-
The reconsideration in the Australian Government of whether to sell uranium to Russia may have implications for Australia's refusal to supply to India.

- Should Australia supply uranium to Russia, a country long perceived as an enemy. A country that Australia's allies, chiefly the US and UK have through Nato a growing interest in preventing Russia from clawing back territory Russia lost in the early 1990's?

- Should Australia maintain a strict view of the NPT (denying India uranium) when the NPT obviously favours the "Big Five" original nuclear powers (US, UK, France, China AND Russia)?

- Are non-proliferation principles paramount behind Australian Government thinking in supporting the NPT line or are we merely waiting for the US to blaze the trial by it concluding a nuclear agreement with India first and then it will be ethical for Australia to supply uranium to India?

Australia needs to reassess its priorities in supplying what is an increasingly valuable and strategic energy source. Military alliance building as well as broader political and trade relations come into it.

To place Russia before India denies the importance of India as a ally in our region.

Pete

Update from UIC weekly news 5-September 2008

"India wins exemption from trade ban

The 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group has resolved to lift the ban on trade with India in civil nuclear materials and equipment, ending a 34 year hiatus. A bilateral agreement with the USA still needs to be approved by US Congress, and similar agreements are likely with Russia and France but these affect only trade controlled by those countries. India is barred from joining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on the same basis as China, and its exclusion resulted in the trade ban. It is very short of uranium to support its ambitious nuclear power program, and it also hopes to make greater use of western and Russian reactor technology.
Times of India 6/9/08."

Seems good news anti-green

I've been arguing on OLO and my website since August 2007 that Labor should reconsider its strict NPT position regarding India http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2007/08/australian-labor-party-currently.html.

Labor, now with the responsibilities of Government, apparently recognises the inadequacy of the NPT and the importance of India as a future ally.

As NSG decisions require consensus it appears that Australia went along with the realists - agreeing that India could have uranium. Australia was not reported as opposing the Indian supply at this latest NSG meeting. Apparently Austria, NZ and Ireland were the last to oppose it but finally agreed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7601932.stm

The Australian Government will need to advise some elements of the ALP and anti-nuclear groups why Australia decided to change its strict NPT line. Has the NPT lost validity in cases, like India's, where a country ALREADY possesses nuclear weapons?

While the NSG decision is very significant US Congressional ratification is required. But that still may not occur, or be delayed, due to the US November 2008 election. If the US hesitates some NSG members (Kazakhstan?) might quietly break ranks and supply uranium to India anyway.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Ah, Shadow Minister, sorry I took a while getting back to you, - did not want to leave you in this ignorance of capacity and consumption, - especially as it seems the only reason you still support Nuclear, and therefore nuclear to India or whoever, is that ignorance.
Well, a lot of tenders cross my desk, one a couple of days ago for an over 100 million dollars job called the Shihutang Complex, which has a hydro component, - to quote, " the hydropower plant built within the dam with an installed capacity of 117 MW will generate 480 GWh of electricity per year.
Of course the engineer in that project may have been as wrong as me, despite his awesome responsibilities, just mistaken, or more likely, both of us correct and shadow minister wrong, - what is more likely? - but another article I have seen on several newspaper sites, "According to the AWEA the U.S. has surpassed Germany in wind-powered electricity generation, even though Germany has more installed wind capacity. While the U.S. has 20,152 MW, Germany has about 23,000 MW, but U.S. wind farms produce more electricity because of stronger winds. In the U.S. 20,000 MW is about 56 billion kilowatt hours every year."
Just look carefully dear shadow minister, consider whether you could have been incorrect, and if so, thank the lord for having the opportunity to have your eyes opened.
Possibly helpful to you in answer to your claim that I draw from Pamphlets is to inform you that I created those pamphlets, - to help others understand, and of course did all the hard yards of research to present that info.
You get that.
Cheers,
Geoff.

Geoff,

The US has 21 GW of install wind generation at an average generation of 7 GW.

Compared to average consumption of 3300GW This is 0.2%.

You then talk about a 117MW hydro plant, these hydro plants are limitied by the amount of water available, and still make up a tiny fraction of the world's needs.

What is your point?

All the renewable generation installed over the last decade or so has only covered a small fraction of the increase in power demand.

The way this is going Aus will have higher CO2 emissions in 2020 than now. The Gov is talking the talk, but without nuclear it cannot walk the walk.

All I have seen from labor and the greens is hot air.