The Forum published some good comments and feedback on the Newspoll survey on Nuclear Power options in 2006. Recently The Austrailian had a short column indicating 1 in 5 Australians now saw Nuclear power contributing to our energy needs by 2020. I've not seen much on this issue lately and I had thought it might get more air time as part of the Climate Change debate. Can someone comment on this and point me to where I might see where the current thinking is?

Spindoc, you could start here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/category/nuclear-energy/

qanda

Part of any nuclear energy debate should include the problem of what to do with nuclear waste.

I recommend viewing the following website:

http://www.sprol.com/?p=176

Or alternatively google 'Chelyabinsk, Russia.'

As with most things, the public won't consider the nuclear bogie until the cost of reducing CO2 actually starts biting.

Until 2020 when there has been no reduction what so ever, the public will quite blissfully listen to the idiotic drivellings of those that think serious reductions can be made without nuclear energy.

Until then there will be no serious debate.

My party says we will never use it but we will.
Greens too but they are wrong.
Already half the world is using it or planning to.
We have enough waste to kill us all now, we must find a way to dispose of it, we will.
Russia has enough to kill the world and is not looking after it at all.
By 2020 Australia will be at least planning to build more than one power station using it.

Ta for the ref. sites, have done some research and surprised that some 440 reactors now in opration, also surprised that no nuclear waste, madical or long life has actually been prmanently disposed of (burried) yet, just stored until they figure out what to do with it. Can't actually find solid basis for objections to nuclear power. If it's good enough for others wonder why we can't get behind it?

Because people fear what they don't understand spindoc.

Welcome to OLO!

Of course, there are issues ... and IMO, Oz probably doesn't need nuclear power - yet (because of these other issues). Other countries do.

As for the older style nuke sites, yes - Foxy is right. However, 4th generation nuclear power is one solution (out of a mix) that must be considered.

The price of electricity will rise until we accept the nuclear alternative IMHO.

That a given StG.

Cost of nuclear is not cheap either - people are doing the maths on all the alternatives.

Good points Q&A, As to cost of Nuclear v.s. others, the recent European costing done by the Internation Energy Commission shows that Gas is the cheapest (but still a fossil fuel), Nuclear comes out way ahead as cheaper than all the rest when everything is factored in. Also, if we are thinking of saving carbon emissions, only 35 to 40 of carbon emissions are related to power generation the rest is mobile transport fuel emissions. It seems that only nuclear can generate hydrogen in commercial quantities to eliminate the other emissions. It Seems that much of the info. is not getting to the public, hence my original query as to where the public opinion debate is at.

It appears that several nations regard nuke reactors as the clean energy of the future. That may be so for the countries which do not mine uranium and therein lies the difference.

Should Australia go down that path, significant uranium tenements in WA and Queensland would commence operations. The industry is peppered with serious leaks, spills, accidents and cover-ups not least in 2007 where workers at ERA were supplied with drinking and bathing water, 400 times in excess of the “safe” limit.

The lag time between exposure to uranium and the relevant health symptoms is lengthy, therefore difficult to prove - fortunately for the uranium operators!

Tailings dams must be monitored for perpetuity which hasn’t always happened in Australia where the Yeleerie project in WA was abandoned and left accessible to wildlife and bush walkers. I’m reminded of a friend who advised me that he had swum in an on-site pond there though sadly he is no longer here to elaborate.

One of the globe's biggest polluters and wasters of water, BHP Billiton, has been exempted from legislative and environmental responsibility (Indenture Act 1982), This single company takes 35 million litres a day from the fragile Great Artesian Basin – free of charge for 70 years.

As for the rumour that reactors are cheap spare a thought for the Brits and their aging reactors. These reactors currently supply only 20 percent of Britain's electricity. But as they age, all but one of the country's 19 reactors will have to be taken out of commission by 2023.

The cost of decommissioning ageing UK nuclear plants has risen by £12 billion to £73 billion since 2005 according to their National Audit Office.

The wind energy generation capacity in the US is now 16818 MW and is generating an estimated 48 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of wind energy, powering the equivalent of over 4.5 million homes.

This is not significant for the American population, however, it would be significant for the Australian population.

Alas not if the AGW sceptics aka our nuclear proponents have their way.

http://www.jimletourneau.com/2009/01/top-uranium-producing-countries/

I don't think the International Energy Commission would take kindly to their comprehensive report on energy costings being described at "rumour" Dickie. And yes the UK Gov. are decommissioning some of their generation one reactors and yes, some of their generation two reactor are scheduled for decom, by 2020 something, and yes the decom costs have blown out however, even with all those costs factored in the IEC still shows nuclear as cheaper than both coal and renewables.

Perhaps you could suggest how we might remove the carbon costs of transport (60%-65% of current emissions) without the commercial quantities of hydrogen that nuclear energy can also provide?

Hi Spindoc

I advise I do not have unquestioning faith in the IEC. If you have a look at other experts’ historical predictions such as ANSTO, you may like to ask them why much of the nuclear industry is bankrupt and why that predicament wasn’t included in the cost factoring.

A quote from Q&A’s link could be relevant: “Always listen to experts. They’ll tell you what can’t be done and why. Then do it.”

Currently hydrogen is separated from fossil fuels. All the futuristic technologies sound plausible but how futuristic are they? Andrew Oswald, an economist at the University of Warwick, and his brother Jim, claim that to switch to hydrogen power for vehicles would require either covering half of California with wind turbines or building 1,000 nuclear reactors. I suspect the hydrogen economy to which you refer is several decades away.

I did some research on Generation 1V reactors some years ago. The PBR’s operate with about 310,000 tennis ball sized pebbles wrapped in graphite. The pebble-bed design contains a lot of graphite, and not just in the fuel which raises at least a question of a graphite fire, as at Windscale (Great Britain) in 1957 and at Chernobyl in 1986.

And while the pebble-bed reactor will store spent fuel temporarily, it would only exacerbate the persistent inability to store radioactive waste safely. The massive volumes are a particular problem. All these balls eventually become medium to HL waste and must be interred somewhere though they are less radioactive than waste from conventional reactors. Nevertheless, nuclear clean energy still has dirty hands.

And while wind technology remains problematic, Germany is well advanced though they have now been overtaken by the US, Spain, China and India for new capacity. However, Germany, Europe’s largest economy, which is phasing our nuclear energy, has reduced its CO2 emissions below Kyota levels.

The Australian government claims we're on track. So what have we done to date? Increased CO2 levels!

Contd…..

We live in a democracy where we are free to do pretty much as we wish, providing it doesn’t harm others. Many of us (including me) have good ideas on dictating to industry on how to cease polluting but how democratic is it to witness hundreds of thousands of motor vehicles during peak hour traffic with just a driver?

The MV industry as previously reported, is the second highest emitter of CO and the highest emitter of benzene – a carcinogen. Both oxidise to CO2, then add the emissions of dioxins and other seriously environmentally and health damaging hydrocarbons spewing out from vehicles. I would recommend at least one business day a week where shared travel or public transport arrangements becomes imminent and mandatory.

I’m in possession of the manual published in 2006 “Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review.” On page 2:

“In one scenario, deployment of nuclear power starting in 2020 could see 25 reactors producing about a third of the nation’s electricity by 2050.

"Private investment in nuclear energy may need some government support or directive.” I like the "may." Same old story eh?

“Nuclear energy is likely to cost 20 to 50% more than power from a new coal-fired plant at current fossil fuel prices in Australia.”

Given the penchant for successive governments obsession with growth –not least a population explosion, I would doubt the number of reactors recommended. This in no way indicates that I favour coal.

On the global front, suggestions to build giant solar reflectors in space to prevent global warming is ridiculous and simply masks the causes. That man could have polluted near-earth orbit so badly and so quickly is nothing less than criminal. The smaller pieces of man-made orbital space junk now exceed the population of meteoroids in Earth's orbit and are becoming an increasing threat to orbiting spacecraft.

Sending man-made ionospheric heaters, such as HAARP’s monster, which can manipulate the weather, man-made chemicals or tossing 350,000 million copper needles by the military etc., into space intentionally, IMO requires serious investigation and should be factored into debates on anthropogenic climate change.

Hi Dickie, The IEC report is not a question of faith, it is a definative study, have not seen any report that has the Nuclear Industry as less cost effective, Have you? The industry is not bancrupt as ou suggest, it is thriving and selling power for a profit, especially to Spain, Scandanavia and the UK who's state owned wind farms are unable to meet demand.

ANSTO is not a Nuclear Power generator and have no expertise in such matters, they use the Lucas Heights reactor for mainly medical and metalurgy research. I have not seen an energy costings report from them, please point me to same.

I thought Gen. IV reactors were the new gas cooled jobs, with 92% recycling of the nasty bits into new fuel elements?

I guess the other point about MV emissions is: how else can we produce enough hydrogen without burning more coal? It's got me beat.

Hi spindoc

Who is the IEC? Link please. I actually thought you were referring to the IAEA. Nevertheless those who ignore the past with these agencies, are bound to repeat it:

The last reactors built in Canada (Darlington) blew-out 300% to $14 billion

The last reactor built in UK (Sizewell-B) blew-out 70% to $7billion

The construction cost of the US overruns were typically between 200-250% (EIA)

Finland’s new reactor is some 2 years overdue

And getting this industry off the government dole would finally force it to innovate or die-at least. Welfare, after all, breeds sloth in both individual and corporate recipients.

In 2004 the British government had to bail out British Energy - bankrupted and costing the taxpayer some 3 billion pounds. British Energy is making profits while the taxpayer foots the industry’s bills and liabilities. "Factored in costs" spindoc?

And while Britain piles up its own and foreign nuclear waste, there are currently no plans or sites for a repository to store or dispose of it.

Meanwhile, France has proved that reprocessing works. With a fully developed nuclear cycle, the French now store all the waste from 30 years of producing 75% of its electricity beneath the floor of one room at La Hague in Normandy. Yay!

And yet the cost of disposing waste remains unknown since there is no permanent repository fully operating anywhere in the world. The US’s Yucca Mountain proposal for HL waste has become a political and technical nightmare with massive cost blowouts.

Meanwhile, the US has the highest number of nuclear reactors (104) yet remains the highest emitter of CO2 on the planet.

Who will pay for any new reactors in the US? Wall Street?

Do not get excited about “planned” or “proposed” reactor spin spindoc. The nuclear renaissance – those reactors under construction, are in China 11, India 6, Russia 8, Slovakia 2. Developed countries have no more than 2 under construction - some one, the majority, none at all.

I believe PBR’s are part of the generation 1V reactors.

Dickie, that was a compelling comment ... well said.

I think spindoc is referring to:

http://www.iec.ch/news_centre/release/nr2006/nr1006.htm

Spindoc?

Sorry about that (an intriguing site). Try

http://www.iec.ch/helpline/sitetree/about/

Right, thanks a lot for that Q&A. I thought you and spindoc may be interested in reading the serious stuff in the following link. As a bonus, the depiction of little Johnny in “I had a dream,” I found hilarious:

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/opeds/nuclear.costs.new.matilda.pdf

Foxy’s link to the Chelyabinsk disaster is a timely reminder that millions of people have been and are being exposed to the radioactive waste dumped around the planet.

The Chernobyl fallout continues to contaminate livestock in Wales where in certain areas, all sheep must be tested for radiation - unfit for human consumption and slaughtered, or returned to a “clean” paddock before sale.

Cancers are emerging in children in Iraq from the military’s depleted uranium. The oceans are contaminated with hundreds of drums of HL waste from Russia and Britain. Submerged Russian nuclear subs languish on the ocean’s seabed. Belarus’ children continue to be afflicted with thyroid cancers and leukemia. In fact children’s cancers around the world have drastically increased. Radioactive emissions know no geographical boundaries.

Efforts to clean up RA waste have been abysmal, even non-existent and astonishingly, nations think only about a nuclear future rather than cleaning up a nuclear past and the trashing of Planet Earth will continue.

All nuclear agencies advising and controlling this industry remain silent about this waste. Enlightened citizens will not place their trust in this industry or colluding governments. The world’s gone mad methinks and the foxes remain in charge of the chickens!

Too easy! Get the wast off the planet! Stop thinking of how much it costs! In my way of thinking, would you sh@t in your own backyard?, I don't think so. GET IT OUT AND INTO A DISTANT SUN! Economics of the future will be some-what different.

Have a think.

EVO

I'm impressed that contibutors to this thread are so well informed, clearly people are doing lots of homework on the subject. I guess my issues are more to do with what alternatives do we have? Like you I can refer to thousands of articles and opinion pieces on the subject, both for and against.

It seems that the objections have not changed since the 60's and 70's, perhaps because it is widely perceived that these remain unaddressed. If refereences to "opinion" on the thread are wanted I can't help, there are just too many.

This link http//world nuclear.org is based upon actual industry performance. It will not address emotive objections and it will never resolve issues raised in opinion pieces. It does however, lay to rest many of the "myths" about nuclear energy.

There is clearly much to do to resolve genuine concerns about nuclear energy, the question remains, if we are causing global warming and are short of energy, what do we need to do?

Is it worth sorting out the issues relating to nuclear energy? or to stick with trying to mandate through an ETS, the reduction of carbon fuel use?

The debate seems to be where it was 40 years ago, emotive and circular with nobody able to break the nexus.