John Howard has confirmed that nuclear power is going to be an important part of Australia's future energy needs and it's about time. Finally, Australia has a Prime Minister gutsy enough to face down the noisy minority ecowacky brigade and do what is right for Australia. As opposed to appeasing these ignorant tree hugging fools.

The chief arguments against nuclear power as espoused by these luddites has always been cost and waste. Ironically these two very real problems were in fact created by the environmentalists themselves and are easily solved.

Back in the early days when fission was still state of the art cutting edge science and the first reactors were being explored for commercial energy consumption, it was assumed that recycling of spent fuel(waste) would ofcourse be a part of the nuclear cycle. Recycling the waste with Breeder reactors would have mean't that the fuel could be reused over and over. Allowing supplies to last many times longer, thousands of years in fact, and vastly reducing waste.

Green groups pressured the American government into banning recycling technology. Instead of recycling it, the waste was transported around the Globe and either recycled elsewhere or buried. As a result, Nuclear energy costs became uncompetitive with coal. Instead of a nuclear era we stayed with coal and now have Global Warming as a result. In other words GreenPeace and similar domestic terrorism outfits can be blamed for recent climate changes.

Even with the US ban on recycling if all of the existing nuclear waste in the World was placed in 40 gallon drums unstacked they wouldn't fill a football stadium.

Nuclear power is the most compact energy source we have. It's clean and safe. We should have embraced it decades ago. It is the only serious alternative to coal which takes 10,000 lives every year. Last year nobody died from nuclear energy.

One little slip with nuclear power and there will be no future. It never ceases to amaze me that people call for nuclear power as clean and safe (it is neither)when lunatics in Iraq and North Korea are threatening the world with the very stuff some people want to make their toast in the mornings with.

One little slip with nuclear power and there will be no future. It never ceases to amaze me that people call for nuclear power as clean and safe (it is neither)when lunatics in Iraq and North Korea are threatening the world with the very stuff some people want to make their toast in the mornings with.

There has only ever been one major catastrophe with nuclear energy and that a generation ago. A result of sloppy Russian safety protocols and a near total disregard for the environment. There has never been a Chernobyl in the West and new reactor designs are far safer than those pioneering plants. Some of which are still going half a century after construction after running 24/7 without mishap.

Compared to other power sources nuclear has had a rather dull trial by fire. Whale oil which used to power lanterns almost wiped out one of the most amazing creatures on the planet. Fossil fuels have killed millions. Wood burning has wiped out much of our planets essential forests. The Amazon is now a shadow of its former glory.

Nuclear energy has been through its trial by fire that all new technologies must face. To ignore it after so much research has been done and mistakes learned from is childish.

Perhaps back in the caveman era a similar discussion took place tens of thousands of years ago. Daring individuals advanced the idea of using fire to stave off the winter chill, cook food and provide light. Aren't we lucky the luddite members of the tribe who were fearful of this great new technological advancement were just a minority.

Otherwise we'd still be living in caves.

Thasnks, Wayne Smith! How terribly comforting to learn from you that the nuclear waste problem has been solved. I think you should let the UK parliament know about this -- they'e having trouble deciding what to do with the waste.
Also - the State of Nevada in the U.S. - they'd be happy to hear about this, as would other US states - some of whom are sueing the US government over the unsatisfactory handling of the US nuclear wastes.
And - as for our Prime Minister being "gutsy" - well - we never doubted it. John Howard was gutsy enough to lie about the GST, to lie about Irag's "weapons of mass destruction", to lie about the UN being at fault in the wheat scandal - rather than the AWB and the govrenment.
He is gutsy enough to lie about his secret talks with George W. Bush and plans for Austral;ia taking in the US nuclear wastes
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

http://www.antinuclearaustralia.com

Hmmm... interesting. I see you are trying to rig the Sydney morning Herald poll by posting links to it all around the anti-nuclear websites. Devious. Clever and perfectly legal but nonetheless devious. Wish I'd thought of it but I only just stumbled across the poll.

Sydney morning Herald Poll on Nuclear Energy!
http://www.smh.com.au/polls/national/form.html

Just as I'd always suspected, the public is largely split on the issue and as they get most of their information from particularly bad b-grade Hollywood movies it would only require some educational material in letter boxes and on television to bring them over to the benefits of nuclear power.

An informed public isn't going to swallow the gutter science and fearmongering from the anti-nuclear lobby. Their heyday was in the 60's. You lost the last semblances of credibility when you protested the Cassini space launch and predicted it would destroy the World.

Did you know that coal plants produce more radiation than nuclear plants? There is Uranium and other radioisotopes in coal beds. It gets burned up and pumped into our atmosphere.

The nuclear 'waste' you hate so much is actually contained.

How come you guys never protest coal? Are the fossil fuel lobby paying your bills or something?

“Finally, Australia has a Prime Minister gutsy enough to face down the noisy minority ecowacky brigade and do what is right for Australia. As opposed to appeasing these ignorant tree hugging fools”.

Comeon Wayne, you do yourself and the credibility of your argument a great disservice by branding those opposed to nuclear energy in such a simplistic and hostile manner.

The whole nuclear energy deal is very risky in terms of leakage, waste products, accidents and sabotage…and baseline economics.

Now, if we could guarantee that their would always be adequate funding and that safety regulations would never be relaxed and that there was no threat from overseas or internally from terrorists or other malcontents, and that nuclear power would solve our energy woes and lead to huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, then I could probably go along with.

But NONE of these things are guaranteed! Far from guaranteed.

If a nuclear energy industry was developed in conjunction with an overall sustainability strategy, that included population stabilisation, then I might be able to support it, even with all the above concerns.

But it won’t be part of a sustainability strategy. It will to prop up the continuous growth paradigm, and take us rapidly further away from sustainability.

So all in all, it gets a big fat NO from me!

Incidentally Wayne, our previous discussion on this topic or related matters is not complete http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=31#1887

WayneSmith declares that: 'Finally, Australia has a Prime Minister gutsy enough to face down the noisy minority, ecowacky brigade and do what is right for Australia.'

What he should have said is a PM who is craven enough do what is right for the neo-feudal robber barons who have taken over this nation.

The New Clear push is all about retaining control of power in the hands of a small, powerful elite and keeping the rest of society on the salary treadmill.

If enough households generated their own power from rooftop solar, installed rainwater tanks and rode bicycles, how would the tycoons make a buck?

Even without the financial and environmental cost of developing new clear power, which are staggering, the long-term ability of a society to maintain a nuclear facility is questionable.

Is WayneSmith seriously arrogant enough to guarantee that our society will be stable enough, secure enough and wise enough to provide the required security and expertise to manage and maintain nuclear reactors for tens of thousands of years into the future?

I wish I had that much faith in mankind.

Bechtel Inc. The Company whose agenda George Bush and John Howard push is called Bechtel Inc. When not building nuclear power plants in the US, it builds gold & copper mines for Freeport McMoRan here in West Papua and operates the "US Indonesia Society" lobby group whose agenda for the US to cancel its ban and resume US funding of the Indonesian military, George Bush started campaigning on in Jan/2001.

America was stunned to hear the great oil man Bush say nuclear energy was America's future, but not those people who knew which corporation had been funding the Bush political careers for decades. Bechtel also tried buying Bolivia's entire water supply so they could sell water to the Bolivians at a great profit. And most recently Bechtel has been in the news for some of its wheeling-dealing construction work in Iraq.

Nuclear energy is a stupid option because it uses extensive oil energy to build and maintain.

A clever country, would instead invest money on mass producing high efficiency technologies to cut the future energy demands to a half or third of today's levels, a level at which the planet survives as well as letting you have your morning cup of coffee.

In a discussion with a friend who has worked all his life in the nuclear industry including reprocessing and power plants, and was at the very top of the field he outlined a proposal that would enhance safety and security.

First is to maintain control of the uranium you must stop export of yellow cake.
The government should set up a processing plant to bring the uranium up to power plant purity. (Well below weapons purity).
The plant makes the uranium into reactor rods. Each rod is given a unique identity, which is not lost even if melted.
The rods are not sold but leased and further rods are not available unless the depleted rods are returned.
The returned rods can be processed, (and I did not understand this part) the radio activity is considerably lowered.
They are then stored in a suitable location under Australian government and IAEC control.
The whole process to be supervised by the IAEC.
When the time comes that the uranium ore is exhausted then breeder reactors can be used.

This friend of mine was at a conference in Austria in 1956 when the Russians described their new reactors for power station use.
In question time it was pointed out to them that there was a design possibilty of a failure that could cause a meltdown.
They chose to ignore the warning and it was this very flaw that caused the Chernoble failure.

No reactors in the west had that possibility. The design makes that failure impossible.
It is interesting to talk to people who really know what it is all about rather than all the panic merchants whenever the subject comes up.

What a wonderful world Wayne Smith lives in - one where tree-hugging envirowhackys (gotta love that term, huh folks?) can manipulate world governments to ensure that perfectly 'safe' fast breeder nuclear reactors are banned by green decree!

Mr Smith would do far better(and be a ten times more accurate) to put such 'blame' fairly and squarely where it belongs, directly at the feet of those capitalists behind Mr Howard's determination to put nuclear reactors in many Australians' 'back yard' (come on all you nimbys out there!)

There are two reasons why Mr Smith's Utopian vision of a clean, safe nuclear future will not be happening any time soon. Primarily because of the $Billions at stake for the owners of the Uranium mines and the very valuable ore they contain (much like the oil barons of the 20th century controlled the use of more fuel-efficient motors and also killed off the non-polluting electric car) Having a reactor that makes its own fuel and thus makes the Uranium ore virtually unsaleable is a technology that they must prevent at all costs. Money is what talks the loudest to a politician and also closes his ears to any opposition.

The second reason has to do with the problem of some countries owning breeder reactors that produce weapons grade plutonium. While 'the good guys' (ie anyone who supports G W Bush) would only use such reactors for the purpose Mr Smith envisions (wouldn't they??) some countries will use the technology in ways other than the designers intended (Yes Virginia, such evil people do actually exist!) and easily extract materials that are able to be used in nuclear weapons including the so-called 'dirty' bombs. It is a relatively simple matter to put extremely radio-active and long lived plutonium around a conventional explosive and spread vast quantities of fall-out in a populated area that would kill millions and cause catastrophic economic results.

It is far easier to ensure your enemy's are not able to get their hands on such 'safe' devices (via international agencies and treaty's) when you are not helping to produce them yourself.

BTW Wayne - try telling the people of the Ukraine that the Nuclear Industry has not killed a single person this year - take a trip to Russia and see the 10,000 more leukaemia and cancer sufferers and babies born with serious deformities that have been born because of Chernobyl than were being born before Chernobyl.

Then explain to us how many millions of tonnes of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are produced in the mining of Uranium ore and processing of yellowcake into Uranium oxide and of processing that oxide into a fissile state of enrichment.

And then explain why the nuclear industry places billions of dollars and decades of research into producing more efficient and more expensive ways of boiling water when the Sun is quite capable of doing that for virtually no ongoing cost, twelve hours a day here in Aus for much of the year.

(and yes! - i do actually realise that power is needed 24 hours a day/365 days a year, which is why LNG power stations would greatly help support Solar (and to a lesser degree) wave energy sources in an enviromentally far more friendly way than our glorious leader would have us live in. That is, of course, as soon as someone ever finds a way to rip the populace off from such forms of energy production while at the same time convincing Coal mining companies to foregoe the billions of dollars of current supplies of black gold for which Australia and the rest of the world so desperately wants to pay them.

Wake UP people - the 'power' is where the MONEY is.

http://seven.com.au/sunrise/more_cooltheglobe

For people who care about the earth, please sign this petition.

I probably will post more later, running out of time right now.

Oh by the way; do you all realise that the slag heaps around coal fired
power stations are far more radio active than around nuclear powerstations ?
They are in fact a health hazzard and you are not allowed near them.
Interesting isn't it ?

Good one Bazz,
Did you realise

"that the slag heaps around coal fired power stations are far more radio active than around nuclear powerstations"

simply because there are no 'slag heaps' around nuclear powerstations? Duh!

There are of course persistant reports of radioactive leakages into the groundwater in various parts of France.

Why take the risk when reducing our ridiculous levels of consumption and using renewable resources is not only safer but more cost effective and intelligent?

Because our glorious leaders can't bear the thought of a population released from the shakles of credit card slavery is one obvious answer.

Wayne thinks that everyone who is against the mining, selling and utilisation of uranium and extending it to our own nuclear power plants has to be a greenie and 'tree hugger'.

Well, I am a conservative, both political and personally and I'm still dead against it. At one stage I was weakening and starting to accept the nice-sounding gents from the industry and their "assurances" that nuclear power is clean and green. But I've come to my senses.

Think about the A-bomb. Think about lunatics like Korea's and Iran's leaders. Think about Pakistan and India.

It's all very well to make the claims that Wayne does about that 'no one died from the stuff last year' etc, but I would put to him that that is only because, thankfully, that has been because of realitively low use of the killer mineral.

If the danger of accident, carelessness, and incompetence is not enough, think about growing world instablity and the nutters with access to unranium the instablity has thrown up. Think about the "sick rocks" Australian aboriginals were careful to avoid

"you do yourself and the credibility of your argument a great disservice by branding those opposed to nuclear energy in such a simplistic and hostile manner."

Ecowacky groups have big hearts but nothing much between the ears. Most of the people protesting nuclear energy don't even understand how the technology works.

"is very risky in terms of leakage, waste products, accidents and sabotage…and baseline economics."

Life is not about eliminating all possible risk but balancing it against future gain. Nuclear power is a stepping stone to even greater technologies but only if we take that first step. The great fire of London killed thousands but without fire there would have been no industrial revolution. We are at risk of falling behind the rest of the World and becoming a backward nation. China and India are now leading the way in building new plants.

"Now, if we could guarantee that their would always..."

There are no guarantees in life. The past record of nuclear energy speaks for itself. Not a single fatality in decades. Over a million people die every year due to car accidents. Should we ban cars?

"If enough households generated their own power from rooftop solar,"

You can't force people to put solar panels on their roof tops. The technology is available. Unfortunately its ten times more expensive as an option than going nuclear. What do you think sunshine is anyway? Its radiation from our giant thermonuclear reactor the Sun.

" Nuclear energy is a stupid option because it uses extensive oil energy to build and maintain."

Abundant electricity from nuclear plants would bring down electricity costs. That in turn would make electrolysis of seawater cheaper. Which would make Hydrogen cars competitive against petrol guzzlers.

"second reason has to do with the problem of some countries owning breeder reactors that produce weapons grade plutonium."

That's a security issue. I would argue that its safer recycling the waste here than transporting it all over the World and making it an easier target for terrorists.

Todays third generation designs are safe and reliable. The critics are talking about yesterdays technology.

Happen to see the interview last night on ABC where Sukuki advised of the enormous cost of running nuke power in Canada.

Don't quote third world stats, Wayne. In Australia, 281 coal miners have died since 1902!

You need to access some of Rosalie Bertell's books on nuclear power -particularly "No Immediate Danger". That's the cliche nuke institutions sell the public when there's been a leak or spill! Why? To cover their arses since there is often no immediate danger - some of these cancers can take up to 20 years to develop!

Bertell is an internationally recognised expert on nukes; a member of the catholic grey nuns; is an environmental epidemiologist; has a doctrate in biometry and has warned of this nuclear abomination for decades. I recall she was also an invitee of the Australian government some decades ago on nuclear energy matters.

She claims that the nucleogenic or technogenic abnormalities are increasing unchecked including embryonic, foetal and congenital malformations. She strongly claims that as a result of human passivity, millions of deaths or serious casualties have been inflicted on humans. And she speaks strongly against the military nuclear garbage.

As she states: "Each and every problem we face today is the result of yesterday's brilliant solutions".

You need to think about Howard's claim, Wayne. Ten years before commencing the construction of a nuke power plant? Ten more years before operations commence? And what are we doing for the next 20 years, Wayne? And how will one little ole plant mitigate the problem of fossil fuel pollution?

Be assured, the bureaucratic tossers will continue to fiddle while Rome burns, when they could easily become immediately serious about renewables!

In the meantime,a prototype "fusion" plant is under construction - most details I've forgotten. However, all citizens should research the potential of fusion as a solution, which, if I recall, has none of the lethal radioactive problems of fission. So all proponents of nuke power - are you the luddites? Better get with it. Get with the technology! Sorry about the uranium shares you've invested in!

I have to keep reminding myself that Wayne is not the enemy, nor is he the person we need to convince about the Nuclear Industry's push to control our nation's future power supplies... but Jeez he makes that difficult sometimes!

"Most of the people protesting nuclear energy don't even understand how the technology works..."
Sadly Wayne, neither does John Howard or many of his moronic followers who will believe him whenever he says the Nuclear industry is clean and green ('No Virginia, nuclear power stations never accidentally vent radioactive gases or leak radioactive contaminants into the surrounding groundwater supplies, and if you don't develop cancer within one year of a spill you must be safe for life').

"Nuclear power is a stepping stone to even greater technologies but only if we take that first step..."

'A' potential stepping stone Wayne, not the only one or necessarily the best one when ALL factors are considered, not just the ones favourable to your opinion. (Some 'ecowhacky's' do actually possess mental faculties even superior to your own, bud - sad, but none-the less true).

"Unfortunately its ten times more expensive as an option than going nuclear..."
While I am certain that you would not make such a statement without some kind of published data as proof, just how accurate do you feel that statement would be if successive governments had placed as much public fundng at the disposal of renewable energies such as solar and geothermal instead of towards nuclear generation over the last 5 decades? Just how cheap would electricity be when it costs nothing to supply heat to water to turn a steam turbine? with no appreciable safety factors to overcome?

... and while i am loathe to labor a point I feel a further comment or three is in order...( forgive me folks : ) )

"That's a security issue. I would argue that its safer recycling the waste here than transporting it all over the World and making it an easier target for terrorists..."

My point was that certain GOVERNMENTS would build their own breeder reactors which they could then easily siphon off Plutonium for weapons manufacture and sale to the highest bidder if we help profligate nuclear power stations, particularly the ones Wayne approves of so highly for their 'efficiency'.

Let me pose a question here: Just how safe do you think any country with Uranium ore will be from America if the US becomes as economically dependent upon Uranium as they are currently on an Oil Supply? Would Australia's interests be considered any more than the Iraqi's were if we declined to sell them yellowcake cheaply or tried to instigate a non-US cartel control over the transport of Uranium fuel rods??

Ahhhh don' fink So !

If the best use of Uranium we can come up with in 60 years is to make ludicrously powerful bombs and to boil a tub of water, besides the odd radioactive isotope creation - thank you, Lucas Heights, then ours is best left in the ground in my not so humble opinion.

Solar + wave + wind + geothermal energies until fusion can resolve the nuclear issue for once and for all - C'Moonnnn Australia! - Let's Really be the Clever and Ethical Country - Crikey!

Didn’t David Suzuki bore it up Howard over his nuclear ambitions.

Excellent!

*"Don't quote third world stats, Wayne. In Australia, 281 coal miners have died since 1902!"*

Pollution from coal burning has already shortened all of our lives. My data is indeed outdated. A new study into micro-particles was particularly alarming. It's actually 30,000 deaths.
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair.htm

*"In the meantime,a prototype "fusion" plant is under construction"*
Fusion reactors are a pipedream. Our grandparents were having this same conversation. Magnetic confinement can't bottle the sun.

"While I am certain that you would not make such a statement without some kind of published data as proof,"
It was in the Courier Mail today.

"..just how accurate do you feel that statement would be if successive governments had placed as much public fundng at the disposal of renewable energies"

I thought we were living in the real world and not fantasy land. Unless you have a time machine and intend to go back and change history ofcourse.
Coal and nuclear are the only proven options for supplying energy on this scale. Nuclear supplies over 70% of France's electrical power. If the World had embraced nuclear energy decades ago then we wouldn't have any Global Warming now.

*"Just how safe do you think any country with Uranium ore will be from America if the US becomes as economically dependent upon Uranium as they are currently on an Oil Supply? "*

I wholeheartedly agree. We should definitely build our own nuclear arsenal to deter America and any other aggressive state from attacking us.

Go for it WayneSmith.

'Nuclear supplies over 70% of France's electrical power. If the World had embraced nuclear energy decades ago then we wouldn't have any Global Warming now.'

Not only is France struggling with the quantity of nuclear waste it produces and problems with radioactive groundwater, the simple maths is that if all developed countries had 'embraced' nuclear to the same extent decades ago, the world supply of uranium would be depleted by now. Just like coal and oil it is a finite resource, once it's gone, it's gone forever.

"We should definitely build our own nuclear arsenal to deter America and any other aggressive state from attacking us."

And you have the audacity to say that "Ecowacky groups have big hearts but nothing much between the ears."

I say you have been hoist on your own petard and should slink back into the slimey, dark place you belong

A few more tidbits for Wayne:

A DOIR briefing note obtained by the Shire of Sutherland where the Lucas Heights reactor is:

"Be careful in terms of health impacts - don't really want a detailed study done of the health of Sutherland residents. Don't say no extra risk - say...acceptable risk".

The NSW Health Counter Disaster Unit reported that the Sutherland Shire community should be advised that an aqueous iodine solution is currently available without prescription throughout pharmacies within 3kms of the Lucas Heights reactor. Mmmmmm wonder how you would administer this iodine solution in a pediatric sense!?

And the entire nuclear chain emits huge amounts of CO2, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead, SO2, sulphuric acid, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, radioactive emissions including radon gas, CFC gases, etc etc. This is just from uranium mining, tailing dams, yellowcake conversion, enrichment and transport.

Don't forget the tonnes of concrete required to build a reactor and the subsequent pollution! And have a look at the federal government's National Pollutant Registry on our uranium mines where our largest uranium mine is the biggest user of underground water in the southern hemisphere but still helping themselves to millions of litres daily from the Great Artesian Basin and this project is expanding!

Perhaps readers are unaware of another Australian company who was prosecuted twice last year. Fined $150,000 in the May and then fined for a different offence in October - $82,500. I can give you heaps more if you're interested Wayne unless you prefer to keep your head in the sand.

And stuff your fast reactors. This hasn't stopped the US from having to build a huge waste repository in the Yucca Mountains Nevada,where the costs have already blown out with one blunder after another. $6 billion dollars had already been spent up to 2002 from memory and rising fast!

You can not replace one flawed technology with another!

Blimey Wayne - you're sure living in la la land!

Ecowackies always use emotionally driven arguments rather than logical ones I've noticed. Insults and imaginative references to armageddon style scenario's. The public has been listening to this same tired dogma for decades now. The doom and gloom prophecies have failed to materialise. Give it a rest. Nobody is buying it.

"the simple maths is that if all developed countries had 'embraced' nuclear to the same extent decades ago, the world supply of uranium would be depleted by now."

You keep reiterating that fallacy. Do you guys even read prior postings before mouthing off your anti-nuclear ravings? Recycling of waste would ensure that existing Uranium supplies would endure atleast another thousand years. In a thousand years time we will doubtless have access to off-earth Uranium supplies. Assuming nuclear is still relied on.

Many new reactors use Thorium anyway. Another radioisotope in far greater abundance than Uranium.

"I say you have been hoist on your own petard and should slink back into the slimey, dark place you belong"

Why should we rely on America's nuclear umbrella to protect us? Are you a man or a mouse to prefer hiding under the skirt of another nation? As long as we rely on America's good will towards us we will always be their pawn. Nuclear weapons are never going away. It's time we grew up and accepted that fact. We are surrounded by nuclear arsenals so why shouldn't we build our own? Its a public decision anyhow.

"And stuff your fast reactors. This hasn't stopped the US from having to build a huge waste repository in the Yucca Mountains Nevada,where the costs have already blown out with one blunder after another. $6 billion dollars had already been spent up to 2002 from memory and rising fast!"

They built the waste repository because recycling is banned over there. Banned because of pressure from idiot greenies. Half a century of research and development in recycling could have led to fantastic new technologies but instead they put their heads in the sand along with the nuclear waste.

Wayne - You're on the short list for receiving the prestigious "Five Star Hoppy Badge" for "Twit of the Year"!

Whether countries "reprocess" their nuke waste or use the "direct disposal" method has nothing to do with the greenies in the US.

Many countries choose the "direct disposal" method for future retrieval since used reactor fuel is a potentially valuable resource and there is a reluctance for intractable burial, therefore it is stored in a manner which allows access for future use.

Lucas Heights uses the "reprocessing" method where the spent fuel rods are sent to Europe. The uranium and plutonium are extracted to be re-used as a reactor fuel (MOX) and the remainder is returned to Australia where it is treated as an intermediate level radioactive waste. This material has no conceivable future use and must be disposed of and handled safely for hundreds of years.

Would you advise me of the countries operating a "thorium" reactor?

Workers extracting thorium have a high rate of lung and pancreas cancers - which often surface many years after exposure. Th. invades bone and causes genetic alteration. Th. X-rays can produce liver cancer.

Assuming India may be operating a thorium reactor in the near future, they will require 2.2 tonnes of plutonium annually as a seed. Proponents of all things nuclear claim this is a good way of disposing of plutonium as thorium literally gobbles it up! So what happens when they run out of plutonium?

And if you are suggesting thorium is the way to go, well my friend, it need only be monitored for 500 hundred years rather than thousands
- is this what you are so excited about?

And our Australian scientists have been promoting Synroc as an infallible way of storing IL and HL waste. Funny that since it's been around since the late 80's and no-one appears interested except the yanks who have, between yawns, considered Synroc as a means of containing their abominable military waste.

Good luck with your award, Wayne!

Wow Wayne, you keep digging deeper don't you?
"The doom and gloom prophecies have failed to materialise."

I gather you don't read the papers then? In my lifetime alone the world's population has exploded from barely 2 billion to over 6 billion. Tell me that's not a population bomb.
Global warming? I suppose you still think that is 'voodoo science'.
I could go on all day: crashing fish numbers in the ocean, extinction of animals, dieback, deforestation or just simple airborne pollution that kills thousands a year through lung disease.

I guess you also believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden?

As for finding uranium on other planets, that is really clutching at straws. Why on earth should humans be allowed off Earth to pollute and plunder other planets?

To graduate from kindergarden we need to show responsibility and wisdom.
I don't think our history as planet trashers give us the right to infect other planets.

I wonder, does the government have any WayneSmith fridge magnets.
If there are many more where you come from I'm now alert and extremely alarmed.

Wayne, your irrationality is becoming ever more obvious as you ‘develop’ your argument supporting man-made nuclear power.

Claiming ‘The Courier Mail’ as written proof of one of your claims? Surely you of all people have reason to doubt the accuracy of things you read in newspapers or did the SMH get it right in your case? Or is the Courier Mail incapable of making such blatant transgressions and we should trust them as a source of information implicitly?

“I thought we were living in the real world and not fantasy land. Unless you have a time machine and intend to go back and change history of course. Coal and nuclear are the only proven options for supplying energy on this scale. …. If the World had embraced nuclear energy decades ago then we wouldn't have any Global Warming now…”

Last time I checked cars, planes and trains all were sources of Global Warming as is burning down the Amazon Forests!

You use the exact form to put your case as you were vilifying. You state: ‘if we had done this back then...’ whereas I merely asked the question: ‘how accurate you felt a statement would be if this had happened….’ I never made any statement that this had happened already or was any kind of current reality. I was pointing out that current reality (ie the state of our nuclear industry) is only the way it is because governments poured vast quantities of our money into an inherently deadly alternative to coal whereas a safer, viable option was available in the various renewable energy sources that cannot be used (yet) for weapons purposes.

As for Coal and Nuclear being the only proven options for supplying energy on this scale? You are ignoring a simple fact: namely, all power stations rely upon boiling water to produce steam to drive turbines which then generate electricity. LNG, Solar radiation and geothermal transfer are all proven methods of boiling vast quantities of water: all with vastly less environmental damage to our planet, which we must continue to live on for the foreseeable future

You are right in only one aspect of your belief Wayne – the future of world energy supplies does lie in Nuclear reactions. Your great failing is in it’s location – it is perfectly located some 146 million kilometres from the surface of our planet.

The following table explains this quite clearly - now if we could just get governments to transfer their funding into development of utilising this enrgy we will be well on the way to a glorious scientific future.

1.04 × 10^19J — total energy from the Sun that hits the Earth in one minute
1.339 × 10^19J — 3719.5 TWh — total production of electrical energy in the US in 2001
1.05 × 10^20 J — energy consumed by the United States in one year (2001)
1.33 × 10^20 J — energy released by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake
4.26 × 10^20 J — energy consumed by the world in one year (2001)
6.2 × 10^20 J — total energy from the Sun that hits the Earth in one hour
6.0 × 10^21 J — energy in world's estimated natural gas reserves (2003)
7.4 × 10^21 J — energy in world's estimated petroleum reserves (2003)
2.6 × 10^22 J — energy in world's estimated coal reserves (2003)
3.9 × 10^22 J — energy in world's estimated total fossil fuel reserves (2003)
1.5 × 10^23J — total energy from the Sun that hits the Earth in 24 hours

(Source: Wikipedia)

Dickie, can i suggest you research 'fast breeder reactors' and why some people thought these were a keen idea - and why no-one currently operates one (as far as we know)?

And could i just point out a little known or claimed idea? Nuclear power stations were only ever funded by world governments as a 'legitimate' reason for, and source of, producing quantities of weapons grade Uranium and Plutonium. The power supply byproduct is what they used to justify their existance and massive expenditure to us dumb slobs who pay for it.

Ditto Braindrain and Accent

I was merely hoping to evoke a sensible response from Wayne who is too ill-informed to address any issues we've raised!

I can have a more intelligent debate with me trusty ole dawg - but Wayne wins the "Twit of the Year" Award, hands down!

It seems to me that some people will not face up to the real problem.

That is how are we going to produce enough energy to ease the world into a
smaller population while at the same time keeping the peace and having a modicom of lifes necessities ?

Electricity generation uses 70% of the hydrocarbon feedstock.
This may already have started depleting so that will on its own help the greenhouse.
In Australia that figure will be much less whatever it is as we mostly use coal.

Distributed systems; everyone his own power station.
Solar and windpower are unreliable generators.
To use them means very large number of batteries.
Are the inputs for manufacture of solar cells, windfarms and batteries available ?
Are the people available to build, install and maintain distributed systems ?
I suspect not. The magnatude is so great that it will be unmanagable.
What hope for hot rocks ? Possibly our best alternative bet.

Failing that there are no magic bullets.
So you are stuck with coal and/or nuclear; live with it !

At least you have some sort of rational tone to your argument Bazz,

You did fail to mention: Reduce consumption.

Our current levels of consumption are simply obscene and silly.

Do we really need to leave the lights in office blocks all night and weekend?

Do we really need to power millions of poker machines, or CRT tubes in telvisions and computers that spend most of their time talking to thin air?

Do we need V8s that travel at over 200kmh just to keep amused?

Do we need to pour power into factories that produce an endless stream of expensive landfill? (also known as consumer goods)

The list is almost endless. Our addiction to cheap oil has turned the human race into a wasteful and thoughtless bunch of self-centred slobs.

The answer is not nuclear: it's a social awakening to the reality of what the past two or three generations have done to the planet and how to stop doing it.

Accent; Reducing consumption will give more time to find the permanent
solution, but it is literally a stop gap.

>You did fail to mention: Reduce consumption.

>Our current levels of consumption are simply obscene and silly.
>Do we really need to leave the lights in office blocks all night and >weekend?

Absolutely not and the best answer to that is to increase the
electricity charge whenever a floor is unoccupied.
It can be done automatically

>Do we really need to power millions of poker machines, or CRT tubes >in telvisions and computers that spend most of their time talking to >thin air?

A incrementing electricity rate would fix that.

>Do we need V8s that travel at over 200kmh just to keep amused?

I don't drive a dinosaur !
>Do we need to pour power into factories that produce an endless stream >of expensive landfill? (also known as consumer goods)

We should do away with the "Throw it away and buy another" syndrome.

>The list is almost endless. Our addiction to cheap oil has turned the >human race into a wasteful and thoughtless bunch of self-centred >slobs.

>The answer is not nuclear: it's a social awakening to the reality of >what the past two or three generations have done to the planet and >how to stop doing it.

Yes, well you are avoiding the question again !

>Posted by accent, Friday, 20 October 2006 6:10:05 PM

Okay, Bazz you win. What is the question?

This discussion is called 'Nuclear Power is the Future!'

Not a question, a bald statement of erroneous presumption.

The future need not be nuclear at all if we learn to live within our means.

In fact, a nuclear future seems less and less likely. Even the government's hand-picked bean counters today declared it to be not economically viable.

As I said in my first post on this topic, the only people who stand to profit from nuclear power are those who want to exploit the planet and the people on it for their own greed.

Whether they produce the power or the consumer crap they are equally guilty of planteray vandalism.

>This discussion is called 'Nuclear Power is the Future!'

I stand corrected, I am off topic. The question is the one that
worries me if we accept the no nuclear argument.
What do we do to keep the lights on ?

>The future need not be nuclear at all if we learn to live within our >means.

That is my question, what are our means ? Solar, Wind ?
They present enourmous technical problems that so far no one has seen
the answer.
This why nuclear is being canvassed. CO2 sequestration may or may not
be practical.
No matter what we will have to shift from oil to electricity.

>In fact, a nuclear future seems less and less likely. Even the >government's hand-picked bean counters today declared it to be not >economically viable.

Looked at from our current position you are probably correct.
Looked at from the point where the load shifts from oil to electricity
it will mean more coal fired generation or nuclear.
We are in the lucky country again as we have a mild climate and can
always put on a jumper while we sit in the dark during rotating
blackouts. Pity the poor b#$%^&*s who have ice forming on the inside
of their houses.
Make no mistake, technical planning is occuring in the electrical
distribution industry for how blackouts are to be rotated.
They are as aware as I think most people reading this are that no
additional generation will arive in time be it nuclear or any form of
alternative energy.
When it hits the fan, it will be beyond personal greed it will be a
case of how can we operate with some degree of comfort.

"Whether countries "reprocess" their nuke waste or use the "direct disposal" method has nothing to do with the greenies in the US."

In 1977 President Carter established a national policy that prohibited reprocessing based on the premise that limiting plutonium would limit the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. This was in response to greeny pressure groups. The noisy minority.

"Would you advise me of the countries operating a "thorium" reactor?"

It's new technology.

Thorium.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348?gclid=CMCqmP_e7IUCFUEbIgodEmeTmg

"As for finding uranium on other planets, that is really clutching at straws. Why on earth should humans be allowed off Earth to pollute and plunder other planets?"

God forbid we should allow ourselves to mine the dead barren wastelands of sterile rock in the rest of the solar system. I'm pro-human. Either a catastrophe will knock us back to the stone age or we will colonise space in the near future. Luddites need not come along.

"how are we going to produce enough energy to ease the world into a
smaller population"

Thats easy. We don't.

Bazz ( and to a lesser extent, Wayne)

PLEASE - don't let the 'No Nuclear' argument worry you! Pretty Please??

Put just a fraction of the faith you have in the wonders of a nuclear age into the brains of people equally as smart as nuclear scientists who are capable of developing all the answers to those worrying technical questions that cause you such doubt (and apparently for Wayne, loathing and derision) once our government stops accepting megabuck bribes from the Nuclear lobby and is capable of seeing the value in anything outside of it's own collective arse and self-interest, and starts putting some decent funding into renewable technologies that don't cause lethal amounts of pollution or consume finite resources to anywhere near the extent we have been able to enjoy for the past two centuries. (But are now starting to pay a severe price for).

Please don't assume that batteries are the best, or only, solution to providing energy from wind and solar during each 'downtime'. Energy (of the Potential, ie 'static' kind, capable of being reverted back later to Kinetic for electricity generation) is able to be stored easily, as hydroelectric dams demonstrate in just one PROVEN method.

Just because you have not looked at alternatives please don't assume that others have not got the spark of inspiration ready to provide the answers to the doubts you have. Or that these could not be developed faster than a nuclear reactor could be built in Aus and so lead the way for other countries.

The greatest difficulties we face in getting these technologies developed is not technical or lack of ingenuity. It is the lack of will and willingness for support, from intelligent people such as yourselves, being drawn to follies that only favour powerful businessmen, while ruining the planet for the rest of us who cannot afford to isolate ourselves from the lifelong effects of their greed and short-sighted views.

Damn this 350 word limit! : )

where was i..?? Oh Yes!

It is the difficulty of getting funding for an enterprise that does not hold the potential of vast wealth for a few individuals (or even countries, like Aus, with huge coal and uranium reserves) that holds the develpoment of a cheap plentiful energy supply back. Scientific funding has always mostly been paid for by those who want to maximise their financial output from it - or those who demand a more powerful weapon or advantage over their 'enemy'.

I hope that through forums such as these we can help the majority of mankind become aware of this and develop ways to allow the 'masses' to decide for themselves where to spend taxpayers dollars on such vital issues instead of letting indoctrinated and corruptible politicians do that for us.

Oh Dear; I am getting the feeling that you are expecting too much of
science and engineering. No one has yet come up with an alternative
energy source that is anywhere near capable of supplying a very much
more reduced base load. The hydro pump it up hill and then run it
downhill is all very well for those odd occassions but to do it on
schedule every day at sunset to supply the a grid is just pie in the sky.

I'll bet without really knowing that there is nowhere such an enormous
amount of water could be stored.
Have you ever been in a power station ? You really should arrange to
visit one to get some idea of the magnitude.

Cheers

Ah.... so Wayne says in his post on 20 October:

"Many new reactors use thorium anyway".

Then on 21/10 he says:

"It's a new technology".

Which functioning reactors use thorium, Wayne? Please explain?

"The hydro pump it up hill and then run it downhill is all very well for those odd occassions but to do it on schedule every day at sunset to supply the a grid is just pie in the sky.

I'll bet without really knowing that there is nowhere such an enormous amount of water could be stored..."

I really should not have to point out the bleedin' obvious to anyone over the age of 6 but here goes...

Australia (and because i live here and my glorious leader is trying to get us to swallow his nuclear friends' bullsh#,t and the topic began discussing Australia's future i am directing most of my ideas towards Australia) is an ISLAND! It is surrounded by unimaginably vast supplies of water which is capable of being drawn off and, using the Sun's rays alone (heated water in a pipe RISES!! - use a one way valve and bingo!),lifted to a greater potential energy state during daylight hours (not only at sunset for God's sake - where did you drag that notion from?) Over 90 % of Australia's land is uninhabited/cultivated so we are not exactly short of places to store vast amounts of the stuff either!

Ahhh you smile knowingly - but salt water is corrosive - it'll stuff the pipes and pumps!

Fortunately we were clever enough to invent plastics and ceramics, I reply - no metal needs ever come into contact with the water! ...cont'd.

(from above)

As for ideas of magnitude - i can comfortably state, Bazz, that you have not the slightest idea of my ability to comprehend orders of magnitude and I humbly suggest it is you with a problem in that area. Might i suggest you get an idea of the magnitude of the solution you are downplaying by checking out (as often as is necessary until it sinks in) the table i posted about 10 posts back? The Earth receives in just one/365th of a revolution about the sun OVER THREE TIMES THE ENERGY EQUIVALENT OF THE TOTAL FOSSIL FUEL RESERVES KNOWN ON THIS PLANET!!
The suns rays hit the Earth 24 hours each and every day. Australia receives far more solar energy than it can possibly use at any time in the next 100 years. And except for a few thousand hot water and pool heaters we almost completely disregard it.

As i am certain Wayne would confirm, as it might suit his ideas of a sci-fi future possibility, in space the Sun actually does shine 24/7 and collectors could feed energy from there to the Earth's surface all day and all night too - like i said a dam was just one simple solution besides batteries - there are many ideas needing just decent funding to be developed in as much time as it would take us to approve, design and build a nuclear water boiler (which if we have to approve the same way Howard conned us over with the Republican issue, we will never get common agreement on a design!)

Use the kind of vision men like C Y O'Connor had over a century past (he built a water pipeline from Perth to Kalgoorlie when everyone told him it was impossible) and the builders of the Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme (My Dad was one of those) had fifty years back and see the potential in renewables and help achieve them instead of knocking them and settling for what little Johnny wants you to think.

Well BrainDrain; I must smaile at your name.
How spot on. If you put as much effort into the discussion as you put
into making insults then we might rename you.

I suppose these polls proving that the majority of Australians want nuclear energy and naysayers are only a noisy minority would be most useful in this thread.

Australian poll. 47% for nuclear. 40% against.
http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/newspoll.html

More Australians approve (49%) than disapprove (37%) the introduction of nuclear power plants to replace coal, oil and gas power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while 14% can’t say, a special Morgan Poll conducted after Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry into the Australian uranium industry finds.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4032/

Almost half of Australians have given nuclear power plants the thumbs up as a replacement for coal, oil and gas power plants, a poll shows.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=104053

Australians Consider Nuclear Power Plants
49 per cent of respondents approve of the idea, while 37 per cent disapprove.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12190

Countries with experience of nuclear power plants are even more supportive of this clean green energy source.
Poll backs nuclear increase
74% of respondents: Strong support for additional power plants
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=b054eedc-3164-4d34-9101-5cfc61d95123

Give the people what they want I always say.

"Which functioning reactors use thorium, Wayne? Please explain?"

They are in India Dick.

" The Earth receives in just one/365th of a revolution about the sun OVER THREE TIMES THE ENERGY EQUIVALENT OF THE TOTAL FOSSIL FUEL RESERVES KNOWN ON THIS PLANET!!"

So you want to cover the earth in solar panels which only have a working life of 20 years?

OK That's It - the idiots win this round!

Bazz's unbelieveably witty and intelligent retort has cut me to the quick and i am at a loss for any rejoinder - please rename me someone??

As for Wayne, who i tried to respect for his obviously thorough investigation into the benefits of nuclear energy, ( while completely ignoring the disadvantages or seeming to assume that 'some scientists will fix any problems once they have developed')

His last unbelievably ridiculous extrapolation of a proven fact into something that was nowhere near what even MY fertile imagination was dreaming of shows me clearly that this is a lunatic not to be reckoned with - just completely ignored form now on - so I shall.

Well done morons - the discussion is all yours - enjoy your well deserved victory

"Oh yeah - in case you can't tell (Marge) - I was being SARCASTIC!"

(Well Duuuhhhh!)

If anyone knows of a place where intelligent discussion can be enjoined somewhere else....?

In response to my recurring enquiry:

"Which operating reactors use thorium?"

Wayne replied:

"In India Dick"

In India Wayne? Where in India would that be?

"His last unbelievably ridiculous extrapolation of a proven fact into something that was nowhere near what even MY fertile imagination was dreaming of shows me clearly that this is a lunatic not to be reckoned with - just completely ignored form now on - so I shall."

Oh come come on BrainDrain. Don't be like that. We'll have to change your name to Sooky La La.

A few nasty chemicals are used in manufacturing solar panels and even you would have to agree that experts have already said such technologies can't take up the slack. I'm a realist. Nuclear energy works and the risks are far lower than the fearmongers would have us believe.

Surely there has to be better alternatives than nuclear power?

Whats the problem with the existing system?