It will only take one community where the lowest paid workers are driving Mercs for others to decide nuclear waste repositories aren't so bad after all. With Swedish style underground cask storage of high level waste it will be near impossible for informal groups to divert material. It would be a lot easier to put chemicals in the surface water supply.

How about equal-alarmism for coal wastes? You have overburden dumps, ash dumps with toxic leakages like arsenic, low level dispersion of radioactivity from smokestacks and the tiny problem of 2-3 tonnes of CO2 for every tonne of coal burned. Perhaps the coal industry should also dispose of its waste; in Australia that will be about half a million cubic metres of CO2 every day for years. Contrast that to a few cubic metres of waste per year from a nuclear reactor. Most of that will be reprocessed in next generation reactors so the waste disposal problem becomes a lot smaller, both in terms of volume and decay time.

If you think that wind and solar can make any real dent in coal burning then you are really voting for continued radioactivity not less.

I have to agree with Taswegian. Solar and wind will not cut it. Geothermal seems to have gone to sleep and clean coal technology is not going to work. For a start it would need almost 50% of the plants output to operate.

The latest nuclear technology is vastly different from the technology alluded to in the article. There would be very little waste from the latest generation of fast reactors compared to the old technology. Certainly not enough for weapons grade fuel.

It is time Australians of all persuasions pulled their heads out of the sand and got a grip on reality. Why is Australia's per capita CO2 output so high? We rely on coal fired power stations. If we are going to "save the planet" the only option is to shut down the coal burners ASAP. Modern nuclear technology can provide a clean, reliable base load electricity supply for industry, electric trains, electric cars and households.

It will cost more to produce but what would the cost be if we added Rudd's ETS costs to current production methods? And we would still be burning coal. Wake up Australia!

So Taswegian putting your hand up for a waste dump in your back yard are we? Good for you. Someone prepared to be a guinea pig is always heartening. I wonder how your neighbors feel about it?

Yes Mikk, they would rather be drowned by rising seas or choke on CO2.
Here is another interesting read on this topic http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article5513-carbon-capture-wont-work-penny---from-terry-d-mcgee.aspx

mikk if I lived in the dry outback I'd rather live next door to an N-waste repository than a coal fired power station. Much lower radioactivity levels plus cleaner air. You realise that most smoke alarms contain a small amount of plutonium byproduct just metres away.

What's up Jim, the Liberals are not forming government yet, but you obviously feel they are a threat, which is valid I guess.

The way the ALP is going, they are going to lose the next election by being such weasles with constant spin that eventually no one will have any idea what they stand for.

Saying Nuclear power leads to Nuclear war is yet another emotional stretch of ALP standards, it's blatant scaremongering.

If we get stuck with switching off Coal Fired Power Plants becuase the eco twits have managed to scare up enough support, then we have no alternative to Nuclear Power, none.

All the "renewables" are non existant beyond trivial amounts of power input and cannot sustain a city load. Probably never will.

We have a chance now to adopt Nuclear, get good at it and lead the world, and it's GREEN! No CO2, isn't that wonderful for those that believe CO2 is bad?

The waste, well look at what Prof Barry Brooks says, and if continue to evolve Nuclear Power, we could get to the stage by, say, 15th or 20th generation of going back and reusing all the waste.

Who knows what wonders we could up with, if it isn't killed by deniers and naysayers all predicting doom if we do anything, beyind the trivial of course.

Let's not "Caldicott" an opportunity.

Using nuclear power is not going to lead to war (Mark Diesendorf). There are enough nuclear weapons in the world to wipe the lot of us right now. And, climate-change is not much of a threat either, if we learn to adapt to it instead of wasting time and money on rubbish like the Copenhagen Conference and saying that we should hand out billions of dollars to backward countries, believing that will somehow alter climate change.

Why Jim Green is banging on about the Opposition in relation to nuclear power is anyone’s guess. He should be asking why the Rudd Government continues to think it’s OK to export uranium, but it is not OK for Australia to have uranium-powered electricity.

Uranium is one of the two things which really make Rudd look like an idiot when he utters anything about climate change. The other is his plans for a ‘big Australia’.

If greenhouses gases were really to blame for climate change, nuclear power would pretty much remove the lot. If immigration was stopped altogether, that would also help – based on the beliefs Rudd has accepted from the global warming shonks.

If we have to drop coal, which is doubtful to all but the warming hysterics, then the only option is nuclear. Wind (producing about 25% of the time only) and solar are just feel-good playthings which will never produce enough power to be of any practical use.

As for waste storage: we can store our own, and other countries can do whatever they have been doing with their nuclear waste for years.

Topic? what topic? who needs a topic to show political thin skin and have a rave.

Just to refresh your memories the topic was about the split in the Liberal Party over the Nuke power industry and it's waste.

I live for the day some of you actually comment on the topic, any topic.

Nuclear promoters have always talked up the technology that is 'just around the corner' for fast breeder reactors that use fuel more efficiently and produce less waste. Then there are always the promises of 'safe' disposal, again just around the corner, out of sight.

However, decades later Uncle Sam is so burdened with hugely expensive nuke waste disposal problems at home that he wants those colonial drongos of Liberals to volunteer Oz as the cheap dump for US waste. The Liberal Party is the club of the same ingratiating colonial drongos that allowed the Brits to use Australia as a testing ground for atomic bombs and as the dump for the waste which was never properly cleaned up, remaining in shallow graves that the wind and animals disturb.

If there was any money in waste, now or in the future and if it was so easy to 'bank' the waste, does anyone really believe that the Yanks or Brits would be so keen to get rid of it anywhere, except in their backyards?

Again, if fast breeder reactors that used recycled waste were available now or soon, does anyone really believe that Uncle Sam and others would be getting rid of waste that was 'easily' recyclable?

Fast breeder reactors might be the draw card but as usual it is the old bait and switch that Arthur Daley (The Minder TV series) would have been proud of because it is the old technology that Australia would be getting. Has to be, because the product being sold doesn't even exist.

I suppose the Liberals haven't given up on getting an Oz nuclear bomb either, despite the fact that such weapons are useless, inviting catastrophic retaliation and being entirely ineffective against boatloads of colonising 'refugees' landing on our shores.

Examinator - of course we all aspire to making you happy, not.

So what was your comment on the article oh wise one?

"I live for the day some of you actually comment on the topic" you could try that mate, instead of being the usual sanctimonious whining smart ass.

The Liberal Party under Tony Abbot and Nick Minchen is scaring the crap out of the non conservatives, why is that?

Under the current regime, the ALP actually face an opposition and even the MSM know they can't just bully them anymore the way they did under 2 previous leaders.

It's fun to watch you all run around like headless chooks in a panic, and they are not in government.

mikk, what's the problem with Nuclear Reactors where Coal Fired ppwer plants are now? In time, they wil get smaller, and could then be in the suburbs. The big scare campaign always leads out with, "name the electorate the Nuc plants will be in", so as to kill debate.

You have to get over the fact that Coal plants will go, the eco whackos will see to that - but we need power to run desal plants for the most basic requrement, water, because we don't build dams anymore.

Cornflower, I hear you, and the reason we don't get the new Nuclear technology is the eco types and Caldicotts have killed it - or it would be there. Give it a chance, as we will have to, and it will evolve.

<<what's the problem with Nuclear Reactors where Coal Fired power plants are now?>>

I think the main problem is that the locals would not want them there and the only way to do it would be to ignore their wishes and force them to accept something against their will. Something potentially very dangerous. Not very democratic is it?

You cant ignore the risk analysis that says, while nuke reactors accidents are rare the consequences are catastrophic. Its a simple equation involving how likely/unlikely something is to happen and how bad the consequences would be if it did. In all scenarios it comes out unacceptable to most people in regards to nuclear power. The risks of disaster and massive loss of life are in no way comparable to coal fired power plants and to attempt to equate them is dishonest and misleading.

Funny how all climate scientists are hoaxing, corrupt socialists, while nuclear scientists are perfect even when it comes to predicting the future.

What's the lead time between the proposal for a nuclear power plant and the production of electricity--after years of "not-in-my-back-yard" campaigns,re-design,law suits and changes of government(all factored into the price per kilowatt)? 20 years? 25 years? Fusion power will probably be practical before the first nuclear plant is in operation in Oz.

Right - let's cut to tin tacks here.
The climate changers tell us we must make radical changes. This means one of a few options, we either:
1. Massively reduce our requirements for energy, meaning a significant change in our standard of living, and/or
2. Suck up the resulting significant costs of preventing our use of dirty power, and/or
3. We find and use alternative energy sources that are as efficient and cost-effective.
Much as we might like to think the position is changing wind/solar/geothermal/tidal is not at the stage yet to provide baseload power as cheaply and reliably as dirtier options.
There is one other option - nuclear. Say what you want about it - the state of the industry at the moment is safe, reliable and not crazy expensive. No one wants to have nuclear power, no one wants a nuclear power plant next door, no one wants to have to deal with the waste. But until renewables catch up, if you accept the need for major and immediate action on emmissions - I can't see any other clear option.
And that's the way I see it at the moment.

What about the forgotten option of cutting the outrageously high migrant program. It is not just energy infrastructure that cannot keep up with the outdated growth-ism of the federal government.

Energy costs, housing costs and water costs are going through the roof because supply cannot keep up with the demand caused by population growth through immigration.

The federal government's own reports show that Australian couples are deferring fertility and sometimes not having the children they would like because of rising taxes and costs, especially housing costs.

What sort of a crazy upside down policy prevents our own people from having children to support an over-the-top immigration program driven by the big end of town in the interests of short term profits? Since when were banks concerned about sustainability?

The federal government must take its big hoof off the immigration gas pedal and give Australians and Australia a chance.

Nuclear Power to Replace Coal?

Everybody is exposed to some level of natural or background radiation and the degree depends on where we live. Different radioactive elements consumed in food and drinking water migrate to specific body tissues depending how the body metabolises them. For instance, radium which chemically acts much like calcium. tracks to bone, iodine to the thyroid ( iodised salt to treat thyrotoxicosis), uranium to the kidneys and cobalt to the lower intestine and is credited with the onset of some colon and rectal cancers.

The most serious consequences of high levels of radiation are birth defects and cancerous growths where the direct ionising effects on DNA are thought to be the chief mechanisms of cell damage and I believe this comment to be up to date.

I hope that gives a brief understanding of why we need to be alert to secure plans for radio active waste. Waste that is indeed beyond recovery. At present in Adelaide there are 30 to 40 locations storing low level waste from the cleaning processes and/of medical and metallurgical diagnostics that ideally should be removed from places similar to the elevator shafts of the RAH. to a well secure facility.

...which then become a prelude to continuing the debate for the safe use of nuclear power. Having visited the main street of Hiroshima, over the range from Kure in 1952, barely 6 years after the blast and as a Risk Engineer, propelled into examining insurers risks for the privatisation of the East Sector of Metro Manila Water District serving 5 million residents I remain sensitive to patently false and misleading objections to the replacement of coal by nuclear energy or geothermal 24/7 and receptive to practical debate from documented proof in this rapidly changing energy environment

Jim Green (his real name?!) reports the following from University of New South Wales academic Dr Mark Diesendorf: "The two biggest threats facing human civilisation in the 21st century are climate change and nuclear war. It would be absurd to respond to one by increasing the risks of the other. Yet that is what nuclear power does."

Perhaps he would like to explain why Iran, the newest nuclear threat has no Nuclear Power Stations for electricity generation while the major users of Nuclear Power, France, Belgium, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and Ukraine pose no nuclear threat. It seems that power generation and weapon generation are unrelated.

Examinator,

Your comment was a little rich considering that wandering off topic is a hallmark of your posts:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3315

As labor has so fiercely opposed nuclear, and as it would appear that it is rapidly becoming acceptable throughout the rest of the world, it is only a matter of time before the liberals can use it as a wedge, and Abbot is positioning the party for 5-10 years down the line.

I find it fascinating that articles such as this point us directly to those issues that the author sees as a threat.

The superficial context is the potential for the Liberals to implode over Nuclear Power. IMHO the author is actually telegraphing that Nuclear Power represents a threat to Labor.

Liberals have already demonstrated that they will risk political oblivion to take a stand. They did this because they can. The government has painted itself into a corner with absolutely no room for any sort of maneuver due to their ideological straightjacket and centralized policy compliance.

There are two related debates we have yet to have. One is the scientific reality behind the AGW phenomena and the second is what should be in the solution mix. So far both these debates have been denied to the Australian public. Jim Green’s article clearly tells us that the prospect of these debates is what stops him sleeping at night

Damn it. Built two or three nuclear reactors in Western Sydney. Put the waste in open air dumps on Ashmore reef and other off-shore islands. That would solve energy issues, carbon issues any immigration issues all at the same time.

Phew why hasn't kevvy come up with that solution.

Keith for PM!

ODO,
I merely pointed to the fact that most of the posts showed thin skin political bias and to hell with the topic. Observation of the comments to that point.

FYI. I don't give gnats testicle which party is in power('government'). As for the running around in panic? Nonsense!

One might wonder why Spindoc manages to write on topic.

What I glean from your post is that it's okay for you to wax irrelevant axe grinding, but I'm not allowed to point out faulty, myopic reasoning or objectivity as it's > "sanctimonious whining smart ass(ing) <". It that your point?
__________________
SM

I commented to the politically laden title and opener, your intention were political propaganda, which is your want. i.e. say something often enough it becomes the truth.

I don't accept value in myopic party policy politicking as it neither adds to the truth nor the the country's benefit.

While I respect your intelligence, I don't your motives when attempting to disguise them as genuine interest in a subject.
You above most, know when You're loading prose.

I therefore responded to the subterfuge.

_____________________________
Apologies to the author I'm resonding to specific comments.

Spindoc, all.

Now that you point it out you have a point, although I suspect what you found was unintended by the author.

BTW the 'science' of AGW is a current topic.(not started by me)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3312

I don't wish to divert the topic at hand or lecture, merely to make the observation that a scientific analysis consists of base science principals, methodology, Data, statistical importance, analysis and then conclusions/interpretations. The problem is that most "deniers(?)" seem to be confused as to what constitutes a complicated scientifically based debate. They tend to gravitate towards simplistic rebuttals (opinions, not necessarily backed by the other elements) consequently their arguments are 'scientifically' invalid.

As I said elsewhere the science (defined above) is *beyond intuition, it needs a learned knowledge base*. Sources of this base knowledge is widely available. If people choose not to believe credible sources and the science (year 12- uni 1st year ) physics, chemistry etc then I fail to see what else can be done.
All the contra arguments ultimately rely on Conspiracy theories as motive for the 'fraud'. Do we discuss baseless conspiracy theories endlessly? A modicum of the above knowledge shows that the CRU scandal hardly discredits the synthesis of the multi discipline Science involved

I've read the dissenting arguments, argued and posted base science sites, beyond that I'm out of ideas. Do you have any?

I fear that the Nuke debate is likewise idealistically (dogma) based and will be decided on that basis rather that objectivity.

NB I am NOT claiming superiority just expressing a view based on wide scientific reading.

Nuclear power: the only energy sector with repeatedly proven direct and indirect links with WMD's - the use of around 0.3% of which poses a dire climate change risk in just hours.

Atman ("Jim Green (his real name?!)")
Yes it is.

Atman ("It seems that power generation and weapon generation are unrelated.")

In fact nuclear power stemmed *from* the weapons race, not the other way around. The two are intrinsically linked via:
i) expertise,
ii) infrastructure,
iii) covert research and
iv) the fuel itself

See:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=214632362&blogId=288871569

And any spruiking that this issue is an either/or coal/nuclear one seems to me the epitome of disingenuousness.

Taswegian ("If you think that wind and solar can make any real dent in coal burning then you are really voting for continued radioactivity not less.") I doubt that anyone with even a basic understanding of the issue is advocating a singular "solution".

Consider also that around 2/3 of GHG emissions globally don't even come from generating electricity.

Yet in terms of energy the solution is:
- energy conservation & efficiency measures as paramount (wrt elec, transport and industry)
- a *combination* of renewable, sustainable, safer alternatives, much of which can also be decentralised, drastically reducing transmission & distribution losses.

examinator, you are getting close when you said “I suspect what you found was unintended by the author.” That’s my point, the “fear” triggers ideological conditioning; Jim Green can’t help but telegraph that which causes him angst.

I feel the debates to which I refer will happen in Australia. We actually don’t need to address the scientific reality behind AGW, the US Senate and legal system is about to deal with that big time.

As I just posted on another thread, with the recent issue of “Litigation Hold Notices” by the US Senate to all the main players in AGW science, we have seen another step towards legal action. A further 8,000 personal e-mails have been sent to employees cautioning against the destruction or altering of any related data held on any media whatsoever. Any further debate by us is futile, just sit back and watch.

The first big domino to fall IMHO will be in the USA. It won’t be long before it registers with those involved in the alleged Climategate fiasco that they are now dealing with the “big boys”.

We are however, entitled to have a rational debate about the alternative energy mix, all alternatives. This is not so much in response to the alleged AGW, more that we really do need to modernize our energy and transport sectors and reduce all forms of pollution.

“Yet in terms of energy the solution is:
- energy conservation & efficiency measures as paramount (wrt elec, transport and industry)
- a *combination* of renewable, sustainable, safer alternatives, much of which can also be decentralised, drastically reducing transmission & distribution losses.”

Whist these are admirable measures, atom1, they don’t really equate to the real world. Are you suggesting cities with electric trains halve their services to conserve energy?
How about factory workers only working a 19 hour week? At the price electricity is in Qld., I can assure you most of us are not wasting it. (Does anyone know where I can get a kerosene fridge?)

And I particularly liked this quote from your blog –“'If we look to the history of nuclear weapons development, we can see that those countries with nuclear weapons developed them before they developed nuclear power programs. They have produced the special nuclear materials required for nuclear weapons using facilities operated specifically for this purpose - enrichment plants producing (very) high enriched uranium, or reprocessing/plutonium extraction plants together with reactors designed and operated to produce low burn-up plutonium. Indeed, in some of the countries having nuclear weapons, nuclear power remains insignificant or non-existent.'
- John Carlson, head of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office.

So we can have bombs without nuclear power! Puts a hole in the argument that they go hand in hand. I must further add that so many of your quotes are so out of date – Paul Keating for heavens sake, really scraping the bottom.

We are about to enter 2010 – a long way from the 60s and the Second World War. Technology has developed. Safer cleaner plants are on the drawing board that will have very little waste. Why keep burning coal when there is a viable alternative?

Examinator,

With France the only industrialized country to have had steady economic growth and GHG emissions lower presently than in 1980, there is tremendous energy being spent on nuclear research, and a plethora of new experimental reactors being commissioned. A very likely scenario is that by 2020 (or even 2017), most of the OECD with the new reactors being installed will start to show significant slowing or reverses in GHG and Aus will not. Labor with its strong climate policy and rabid anti nuke policy will be caught in a huge wedge.

I have never pretended to be a fan of Labor and it's populist politics, so when I view the strategies being played like a chess game, it is interesting to see who is playing one move ahead, and who is playing several moves ahead.

Without exception the populist governments have fallen when the people can no longer afford them, Abbot is positioning himself into a "I told you so" position when the ETS starts to bite. When people take home less, their priorities change.

SM,
Are you telling me that the Liberal party didn't indulge in popularist politics (pandering to their rump..apt that term) during it's last period at government and wouldn't again?

Are you telling me that a Liberal govt will close down Big coal in favour for foreign nukes?

What is their solution to the waste? the sites in NT have been *scientifically* challenged?

As I have said before the best Answer is, logically, a cornucopia of solutions.

I also suggested that if Big anything is the only answer then the question is flawed on several grounds.
Not least, the issue under debate, the waste.

The figures you've quoted before are assuming stasis, I refer you to current scientific research and development on related disciplines.

You should also note, that Nuke power requires a static technological point. i.e.a 3 gen reactor is such untill it's demise. not necessarily so with alternatives...there is an upgrade path.

Both political parties bend to the disproportionate power of the mega corps (too big to fail principal, aka good money after bad.)

Examinator,

Perhaps a review of the definition of populism:

- any of various, often anti-establishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.

- representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.: populism in the arts.

Would show why your comments/ questions were so inane.

As far as my figures are concerned even assuming realist advances, renewables will still be incapable of meeting base load demand in the next few decades, and will still be more expensive than nuclear.

While a gen 3 reactor will work for the 60+ years it is designed for, the infrastructure of new plants are being built to allow for reactor upgrades once the reactor itself has passed its use by date. (also obviating the greens assumption of the energy costs of reclaiming the site.)

The new Gen 3+ reactors now being built and the new reprocessing technologies would produce a fraction of the waste with 1/1000th of the radioactivity of the Gen 2 reactors that the previous storage systems were about. So your assumptions are not only static, but mired in the past.

Reality check on nuclear power and climate change leads me to the conclusion that people like Dr Jim Green are it least in part responsible for global warming.

If the world would have progressed with building Nuclear Power plants thirty years ago the technology would have progressed in the meantime to generation four nuclear plants eliminating most of the CO2 produced by the developed countries plus eliminating the nuclear waste problem.

Today sadly, the green anti-nuclear environmentalists have become the biggest problem to actually rapidly reducing the threat of dangerous global warming problem.

By promoting technologies like wind power that became outdated with the emergence of the industrial revolution hundred yeas ago, the greens stoped the rapid introduction of modern high density energy forms like nuclear and so prolong the use of dangerous carbon emitting energy forms like coal and oil.

Clueless politicians with no future vision confused by the green ideas try to deal with the problem of global warming by introducing ineffective and costly bureaucratic schemes like taxes on carbon or the ETS that will do little at a very high cost.

The only solution to dangerous climate change is the fast track progressing of new advanced technologies like nuclear, electric cars, HVDC power supply, nuclear fusion to name a few, everything else is just a waste of time.

Don’t be fooled, by fancy buzz words like calling a wind-mill a wind turbine; a change of words is not making wind-mills a piece high tech equipment, it is still using low density unreliable wind energy.
This is just like building a B24 US Second World War bomber out of reinforced carbon fibre, it still is a B24, yes it will probably flight better but it is noting like the Dream Liner.