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/