http://au.news.yahoo.com/060925/2/10o31.html

"Nuclear energy could become a viable industry in Australia within 15 years, according to a federal government taskforce."

Nuclear power is expected to get cheaper over time relative to fossil fuels. As global carbon emission trading laws expected to be introduced in response to climate change make coal more expensive as an option. Already the rest of the World is quickly embracing nuclear energy as the cleaner option for supplying ever increasing energy demands and this latest news is another positive result for the imminent nuclear renaissance.

Wayne Smith seems to be falling for the concerted hype from the international nuclear lobby. Uranium shares boom in a speculative way, due to this hype. But the truth is that in the U.S.A, the UK and European countries with experience in nuclear power - there is an urgent dilemma going on about waste disposal. Power companies will not invest in new reactors until they can persuade governments to take responsibility for the wastes.
The Bush and Blair governments desperately push the undustry, because they want more fuel for a new generation of nuclear weapons.
Third World countries are being conned by the nuclear hype, but it would be pretty naive for us to think that they are not keen to also have the nuclear weapons option.
When it comes to remedies for climate change, it is increasingly obvious that nuclear power would be (a) too late to matter (b) a short-time option only (c) too dangerous and environmentally bad, and (d) - the big one TOO EXPENSIVE!
I think that, this time, Australia will not be conned by John Howard, with his nuclear-phyicist-stacked, fake, inquiry. Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

Christina Mac has I think become tied to older beliefs.
This suggestion from a friend of mine who is a real expert in this field
having spent almost all his adult life working in the nuclear processing and reactor business.

Stop export of yellow cake.
Build a plant to process enriched ore to power station requirement.
Not sell but lease fuel rods.
No replacement until used rods returned.
Process returned rods to reuce radioactivity and volume.
Store in suitable location in Australia. I understand that there are
no end of good sites.
Rack in the money.

It is true that there is only 40 years of uranium IF all power was
generated from uranium. Then breeders could be used for further fuel.

If CO2 sequestration does not work and nuclear is not used then
prepare to freeze in the dark. Don't let the greenie propaganda
fool you into thinking that solar & wind has a hope in hell.
One exception could be hot rocks, but I don't know why we have not
heard any more about it. Maybe they have run into a catch 22.
Safety: The Chenobly problem was warned about in 1956 but the Russians
knew better and ignored the warning.

Christina Mac, don't take much notice of WayneSmith and Bazz. They are on their own little crusade to make Australia glow.
The real truth is that little Johnnie wants nuclear power because big business wants nuclear power.
If we all have rooftop solar collectors and cut back our obscene levels of consumption, how will the fat guys in three piece suits afford another air conditioned villa on the Gold Coast?
Basically big, centralised power plants are great for keeping the consumers forking over for monthly bills, working like slaves and in their place.
To these guys a society of self sufficient, environmentally responsible citizens is tantamount to anarchy.
They want nuclear power in order to maintain the status quo and keep us in our place.

I agree you accent. If our government truly wanted to help and preserve our environment then NUCLEAR POWER WOULD NOT BE AN OPTION. Where does all the wastage go? How safe is it? We don't have an endless supply of land and sea to keep throwing this toxic crap into. There are other, safer alternatives that our goverment could be investing money into. However they choose not to. Why? Because apparently, as usual, America knows best and little Johnnie shall follow.

The idea of nuclear energy is now utterly ridiculous. As an energy resource uranium has peaked, quality uranium has already been consumed. The cost of nuclear energy will become increasingly expensive. The cost of managing the waste already expensive will also inflate. Like elsewhere in the world nuclear energy and waste will be assigned to the poorest communities. A cheaper alternative to nuclear energy would be burning money. Now we know depleted uranium is dangerous to handle. We know nuclear accidents are inevitable. We know from Chernobyl that radiation can not be contained. We know nuclear power stations leak. We know by using nuclear power we are sacrficing our children. We know that nuclear energy corrupts governments. We know it takes more electricity to get a nuclear power station up and running than the greenhouse savings it offers. Why would anybody seriously consider nuclear energy?
The only people who need nuclear energy is nuclear physicists who need the work. Seems like such a big sacrifice just for a few careers.

It would appear that West and others are not aware that coal fired power
stations are more radio active than nuclear power stations.
Slag ash heaps are too radio active to allow people to spend much time
on them.
Yes nuclear power is safe despite the panic shown by many.
Storage is quite safe and it is not needed for the 100,000 years as
many people claim.

For everyone to be able to live without the grid is a pipe dream that
will never come to pass. There is just not enough materials and people
to do the job.
The alternative is to freeze in the dark.

There is no such thing as safe containment of nuclear waste and there is no such thing as a clean nuclear power station.It is a myth that nuclear energy is a clean energy. It is the very reason why nuclear power stations are placed in poor communinities because poor children are expendable.
I certainly would never invest in an insurance company which is incompetent enough to insure a nuclear reactor and obviously I would never vote for a government so gullible as to entertain such out dated nonesense as nuclear energy.
There is no such thing as efficient, safe or cheap nuclear energy. Since the early 1980's there is no such thing as resource sustainbability when it comes to nuclear energy.You will still need 20 years of coal burning to get the station running, by then there will be no uranium of usable quality.
Uranium gained its radioactivity from absorbing radiation from the sun. If a civilisation hasnt got what it takes to harness solar radiation it certainly is not capable of managing nuclear energy.
Atmospheric nuclear testing in the 50's and 60's has raised background levels of radiation to the brink of high risk. Can we as a species afford a few nuclear accidents to tip us over the edge?

Boring Bazz,

Reducing consumption might be the first thing to try before any expensive, risky and socially divisive mega-infracture.

We already have fantastic renewable technologies. We know how to insulate buildings and our energy storage capacity is outstanding already, and we haven't even really started trying.

We not put our brains to work on clean, safe and socially cohesive engineering strategies, or is that too pinko marxist for you neuclear boffins?

Thats right accent, whatever we do we need to reduce consumption.
A lot of people are totally unable to accept maybe after all this time
that nuclear power stations can be made safe. Just because the dopey
Russians were too pig headed to take advice we are paying the price now.

I wonder how many of you will start clamouring for electricity when the lights go out ?
Just understand this, it is not possible for everyone to have solar and wind mills for electricity.
Think what that word everyone means.

What is the worst thing that can possibly go wrong at a coal-fired power station? Compare that scenario with the worst possible accident at a nuclear power plant. They are not even in the same league.

While there have only been two major incidents, three mile island and chernobyl, I do not dbout that there have been many more minor incidents that have been covered up.

I understand that a reactor cannot explode in the same manner a a nuclear bomb and, on the surface at least, the safety record appears very good overall, but I have my concerns.

We cannot just put them out in the desert as they require both cooling water and reasonably close access to the grid. For this reason, they must be built close to populated areas. They may not release CO2 but the by product of fission is among the deadliest of substances, impossible to neutralise and great for making bombs.

India has expressed interest in sending it's nuclear waste to Australia for storage. If nuclear waste is so safe and non-prblematical, why is one of the worlds poorest countries prepared to part with what little money it has for us to take it away for them?

Surely there are better alternatives. Nuclear power is a bit too dodgey for my liking.

Government-paid nuclear physicists are paid from petroleum and
natural gas tax revenue and can't entirely avoid
having this colour their thinking. The idea of enriching Australia's
uranium in Australia before sending it abroad seems to excite them.

But Australia is free to choose power stations of types
that burn unenriched uranium, e.g. the CANDU type that is
providing half the power to my computer as I write this;
so the absence of a domestic enrichment industry is no obstacle
to Australia's going nuclear for its own power.

"Process returned rods to reuce radioactivity and volume" --
the bad news is, returned rods' radioactivity can't be reduced
by anything but time. In early decades there is always the chance
that spent nuclear fuel will harm someone in a way
analogous to how hydrocarbon burners' spent hydrocarbons,
aka carbon dioxide and monoxide, harm people.

The good news is, it doesn't appear ever to have happened.
Spent nuclear fuel doesn't seem ever to have hurt anyone.
On top of that, uranium costs one dollar for every
~100 dollars oil suppliers and government cheque-cashers --
remember, petroleum is heavily taxed -- would have got
if oil had been burned instead.

"It is true that there is only 40 years of uranium IF all power was
generated from uranium"-- it definitely is NOT true.
No-one who understands uranium geology and markets
believes that uranium will be a limiting factor
in nuclear power expansion in this millennium.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html :
Burn boron in pure oxygen for vehicle power</a>

Bazz said, " Think what that word everyone means."

Yes, not everyone will be able to afford nuclear power. It will further increase the social divide between the haves and have nots. Only those with money, whether inherited, earned or stolen, further entrenching the anti-life work ethic that has become the accepted norm.

One thing everyone can do Bazz, except those unfortunates who already have nothing to lose, is reduce their consumption.

In western society we walk around in shirt sleeves at home on freezing days and work in business suits, in freezing offices, on stifling hot days. We produce mountains of disposable junk, using massive amounts of power in the process.

It's not the crisis in power supply that we need to increase, it's the crisis in intelligence that we need to target first.

Reduce, reuse, recycle. Only if these three Rs fail do we need to contemplate radiation.

Nuclear power generation = huge increase in water use. What a jolly good idea!

Leigh; Not heard of condensors ?

Here goes Wayne again constantly ignorant of the insidious catastropic ramifications of all things nuclear. And seemingly no idea of the pollution the uranium/nuke cycle produces.

The USA have more nuclear reactors (103) than any other nation and are the biggest polluters per capita on the planet!

Back in your burrow, Wayne.

Here goes Accent misquoting me;
Bazz said, " Think what that word everyone means."

Yes, not everyone will be able to afford nuclear power.
It will further increase the social divide between the haves and have nots.

unquote

I have asked this question
"Is there enough raw material to make all the solar cells and wind
generators that would be needed if we were all to be self sustaining?"

"Is there likely to be enough manufacturing plant available ?"

"Are there enough technical people to install and maintain the
equipment and maintain the banks of batteries?"

Again think what the word everyone means in this context.
One suggestion is that energy from solar & wind could be stored for
use at night by melting salt.
Could it be done on a large enough scale ?
Has this been examined by someone expert enough to decide if
it is practical ?

Solar and Wind have a place but not as a base load unless plant with
about eight times the capacity of the existing generation stations and
has a suitable storage facility.
Wind and solar provide an average 25% of their peak capability.
So Base load X 4 X 2 X conversion losses both ways gives you an idea of how big
the storage facility has to be. x2 is not enough for winter or far northern hemisphere countries.
You can divide this figure by a factor depending on how much conservation can be coaxed out of the public.
Those of you have sailed will be well aware that wind speeds are
usually much lighter at night so don't expect much there.

So if sequestration doesn't work and nuclear is not to be used and
it is not practical to fit out everyone with solar, wind and batteries
what do you suggest ?

The odd thing about this issue is its divisiveness. It is unlikely Australia will ever develop a nuclear industry; by fifteen years it will be too obvious that the nuclear energy is a dinosaur. There simply is no energy quality uranium at sustainable quantity.

Why argue over nuclear nonsense? It is unwise to take anything Howard says seriously , this is the child overboard , brother bailing, WMD, AWB, no GST, no interest rate rise, no climate change, no worker will be worst off Prime Minister. Howard has been in a coma since the 1950’s a time when nuclear energy may have offered an opportunity for 40 years. Meanwhile in 2006 nuclear energy at best is nothing more than a very stupid idea.

Bazz your argument doesn’t make sense, go out to your nearest highway and count the cars that will give you a little insight into production capacity of the industrial world.

There is no such thing as safe nuclear energy. There is not one nuclear power station that has never had an accident. To argue nuclear energy is safe is to argue humans never make mistakes and structures and materials are static phenomena and that neither entropy nor change exists. Simply put pro nuclear boffins read too many superman comics.

Once a major accident occurs and the progression of time increases the risk of major accident then there is no material on earth that will contain the radiation. We have learnt that the hard way from Chernobyl.

Perhaps the focus should shift from the dinosaur to pressuring Howard to clean up Maralinga which continues to kill.

Another thing over zealous Superman fans have not taken into account is that the legacy of too much atmospheric nuclear testing is that background radiation in our atmosphere is at near dangerous levels. A few nuclear accidents could cause our extinction.

I suspect the report into nuclear energy in Australia is an advertising stunt the last message we want to relay to our customers is that we are selling them what is effectively a discontinued line

West said;
Bazz your argument doesn’t make sense, go out to your nearest highway
and count the cars that will give you a little insight into production capacity of the industrial world.
unquote

It is one thing to make cars in a factory, and granted if that industrial capacity was doubled
you might be able to manufacture
equipment for every home, shop etc etc in the world but can you install and maintain it ?
You can't take it to your local service place for service ? Or could you ? Probably not the batteries would be too heavy.
Think of all the poorer economies where not every
house has a car, they will have to be supplied with solar, wind mills and batteries as well.
The solar cell material is already in some supply difficulty from what I have read.
Battery maintenance on this scale is a major problem to such an extent
that it may rule it out altogether. I was way back in history involved with
large scale battery maintenance and it is no simple matter.
Is there enough lead/nickle/lithium available ?
Perhaps not on this scale.

I'll see if I can do a calculation on how long it would take to
install a system and then see how long it would take to fit out Sydney
with say 1000 installation techs. Technical people are pretty thin on
the ground these days but it might be possible to retrain enough people.

Bazz you dont have to have a battery in every home , it is more economical to use communal storage. Energy usage can be cut through architecture and uban design and cultural changes. Most people consume more energy than they actually need even if frivolous use is taken as a need. Any problems encountered with solar is nothing compared with nuclear energy. Nuclear power has no future, there is nothing that can be done about that , there just is not the uranium to support current supply in the medium term. Nuclear energy is just not cost effective , where it exists it requires vast subsidies from government to enable the population to afford it. Nuclear powerstations have short life spans of which the public have to pay for containment. Nuclear power stations create more greenhouse gas in their construction and power up than is saved in their short life time. The power generation capacity of nuclear energy is not more effeciant than coal. There is just simply no point to nuclear energy , it is a dinosaur industry.

Yes, but West what do you suggest is used for communial storage ?
Batteries ? Of course that is possible and battery banks as large as
a Coles supermarket might well support the local community during the night.
Well if you say it quickly enough it might.
Having community batteries does solve that problem just shifts it and
its maintenance and financial charges elsewhere.
Was it community battery banks you were suggesting ?
Don't forget the sun will set on all the community at the same time as
will the wind dropping.
Just don't be on the local hospital operating table when the battery goes flat.
I think I would rather rely on maintaining my own batteries but then I
and a few others are a special case. We have the technical capability
to look after ourselves.
Think of all the old ladies and gents you know who don't know one end
of a soldering iron from the other.

I suspect that you are locked into the mantra that nuclear can never
be used, no matter what. Wait till the lights go out and the public is
told that there will be restrictions on what you can use and when.
They will be marching in the streets for nuclear power then.

Why do you think they are attempting to install Broadband Powerline ?
The new meters will include the facility to shut you off completely or
turn off your heavy loads such as stoves, ovens and air conditioning.

I agree that nuclear is not a good solution but it is way ahead of whatever is in second place.

Bazz,
You appear to cherry pick which question to attack. Too much storage capacity demand means no lights at night.
Great!
We can get some sleep, turn of the moronoscope and rediscover the stars and crickets.
All good so far.

Not enough materials to create the required solar cells?

I think West answered that effectively, 'go out to your nearest highway and count the cars'

And the expense … ?
Billions spent on nuclear power plants and monthly electricity bills ad infinitum, then there's the question of disposal and storage of nuclear waste, decommissioning etc.

That will pay for a lot of solar panels.

Of course, with nuclear power we get more security paranoia, so more police, more population surveillance and control, more fear-driven election campaigns and the ever tightening grip of Big Brother.

So, get a life Bazz and Wayne.

Put solar panels on your roof, chuck out the energy-greedy consumer junk, turn in when it gets dark, wake with the cock's crow, ride your bike, take time to smell the flowers and enjoy your time on earth.

Obviously Bazz is unaware that hospitals have back-up generators to take over when the main power source fails. So it matters not of the main energy source, there will always be some type of energy back-up in hospitals!

You don't seriously think that the all-powerful coal industry will close its doors with the advent of a few nuclear reactors, do you Bazz? And what to do in the meantime whilst the Neros fiddle away for at least a decade or two, reluctant to change the status quo?

Mandatory solar panels on all new roofs would result in fewer profits for the coal industry and a mitigation of the need to go nuclear!

That would be a start and could be easily enforced!

Accent:
When I questioned the material availability I was on about the materials used to make solar cells, not cars.
There has been comment in the electronics media about a shortage of material.
The same situation could very much be the limiting factor in
batteries, depending on what type became the most used.
The elctronics in the regulators and invertors might be manageable to
manufacture for every building in the world.
I think you are hung up on an anti nuclear mantra.
You need to come down off your cloud and get your hands dirty.

Dickie:
I am well aware of hospital standby generators, I used to
work in that field. Almost none of them are no break so don't be on
the operating table when the changover occurs.
When peak oil starts to bight who says that they
will have diesal anyway. The idea is to do away with coal & oil,
I thought that was what it was all about ?

You can mandate solar cells on every new roof, but there will be a lot less
new roofs going up in the future so it will have negligible effect.
If I wasn't involved in other things I would like to install
a solar/wind system as a technical excercise and even you two might
learn something from it. To get the power required, no gas here, would
be a very expensive exercise. a very rough adding up of the sums
puts it into the area of $8000 to $10,000 with nill labour.
Minimium power capability for lights, TV set & computer and some other gear
but no cooking perhaps $3000.
How many in the world could make that capital outlay even if they will
save on electricity bills in the future.

I seem to be the only one on here with the technical knowledge so
where you assume that all this is just a matter of doing it I see
the repeated catch 22s, and know that it is not that easy.
I don'r have all the answers, I just know the questions.

Bazz,

you said, 'To get the power required would
be a very expensive exercise.'

Today's paper reports that to build 25 reactors in Australia will cost $750 Billion, for construction alone.

That would make a very good downpayment for rooftop solar on every house in the country. The economy of scale in producing those should bring the cost down, improve the efficiency and spark some creative solutions to your perceived materials shortage.

I don't know which century you live in Bazz, but battery power has come a long way, especially with the evolution of laptop computers and mobile phones.

Halogen and LED lights use minimal power and Australia has massive supplies of both natural gas and accumulated garbage from which methane can be extracted if required. Many people already extract methane from composting toilets and household compost.

Rather than enslave future generations to your nuclear obsessions, let's insulate our houses, build for the climate and get off the destructive work-ethic treadmill.

It only requires the will and a little imagination.

Bazz

Are you suggesting that patients are currently dying when there is a power failure in our hospitals?

Wouldn't it be better to develop technologies that are clean to use and don't need special storage places. Current energy providers just want us to use products that they can sell to us. Free clean energy has to be better than almost clean energy that you have to pay for. Greed is the only reason for not developing other technologies besides nuclear power.

You had better believe that short loss of power is a problem in
operating theaters. I have never heard of a patient dying, but then
nobody would tell me anyway. There are no break systems available but
hospitals being cash strapped rely from my information on prioroty
supply.

Thats a bit off the thread, however everyone seems to be just assuming
that something will turn up to provide us with moderate amounts of power.

But what if nothing turns up ?

It will be too late to start doing something about it when it is obvious
that nothing is going to be available. It will cost a lot less to
prepare for the worse now than what it will cost then.
It is ridiculous to waffle on about conspirosy theories.
If that is the level of the discussion better to close it.

BTW just yesterday; another report on shortage of solar cell material.
Prices of solar cells are esculating because of the shortage.
The manufacturers will be out bidding each other no doubt.
I did see an optimistic report on biodiesal made from palm oil.
Has a better EROEI than other plants.

Still bazz you havnt told us what planet we will be getting the billions of tons of fuel quality uranium since usable sources are within a decade or two of exhaustion. I think you should read up on geology to understand the rarity of fuel grade uranium. Even if we had infinite uranium it takes more green house emissions to power up a nuclear powerstation than the savings of a power staion in its life time. Recently there has been concerns about resources to make concrete, if we havnt got concrete to build skyscrapers and dams how are we going build nuclear powerstations? With pressed earth? What will we use to constantly pour onto a melt down for the next 200 000 years?
If you worry about lack of batteries then I suggest you start knitting jumpers to keep warm in winter.

WEll West, whats your solution other than wishful thinking ?

You seem to be all up in la la land with Mr Micourber.

Either that or you are really Joe Bejoulkie Petersen, you know;
"Now don't you worry about that !"

Unless you have the technical ability to grasp some of the implications
of your suggestions to develop systems to supply power etc etc then I
suggest you do some private study on the subject of electricity,
power systems and electronics.
Then you might be able to make some suggestions other than "it can be done".
It might be possible to do what you believe but so far it is not looking good.
Many people have put lots of thought into it but most fall down on EROEI.
Then overcome the tendency of some to suggest the big end of town will
stop it all

Bazz it is you who is indulging in fantasy, nuclear energy just simply is not sustainable. Aside from the fact nuclear resources have peaked nuclear energy is far too expensive and requires massive subsidisation by tax payers. Nuclear power plants are too short lived to be a part of an energy solution. Nuclear energy creates far too much pollution to power up to make it a credible greenhouse alternative. Every nuclear power plant ever built has experienced accidents health risk to surrounding communities is high. Where nuclear power stations are built local land prices fall which means the poorest are condemned to become the victims of nuclear energy. Of major disaster the risks are massive and once occur then there is no containment whatso ever outside of comic books and radiation spatially spreads. What are you suggesting? We build expensive white elephants which have the potential to destroy a lot of life and will definetely contribute to climate change just to power your christmas lights for a couple of years?

Bazz

Proponents of all things nuked must, by their own admission, purport that climate change is anthropogenic. Therefore, despite the federal government's claim they are meeting their carbon targets, their very own National Pollutant Inventory tells a different story (www.npi.gov.au). The following figures are for one Australian uranium mine only. Should Western Australia be forced to establish new uranium mines, of which there are plenty, then we are truly damned!:

.....................2004............................2005

CO...........10,000kgs.....................360,000kgs
NOx.........240,000..................... 1,200,000
PM............. 85,000........................270,000
SO2.........790,000......................1,300,000
VOC...............1,400.........................72,000

The above increases in just one year, for one mine are shameful, given that we sheep are constantly reminded of the need to reduce our energy needs. Therefore, until governments cease their spin doctoring and properly enforce regulations which guarantees a reduction in industrial carbon emissions, the degradation of our environment will continue.

Even you should know that to establish nuclear power in Australia is simply a money grabbing exercise by profiteers and will do nothing to reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions!

I have filed the above figures under "Exploitation of the Masses!"