Protagoras,
Thanks for the site...clearly the information I was reading although along the same lines was more dated hence my assumptions about the gen3 sites.

Notwithstanding the articles virtually confirmed what I was saying albeit more professionally.

I would still like to see an objective analysis of a mix of technologies in line with my suggestions.
Given the unestimated cost difference between the network infrastructures costs necessary to maintain both systems and I suspect they would favour the distributive system.

While the debate about why we should or should not do it has kept my interest we are not talking about those who are going to go nuclear.
Uranium will be mined it will be used, waste will be generated like it or not.
So very many country's intend or are using nuclear power.
We may even it has been proposed, store others waste here.
I have faith mankind can use it without killing ourselves.
And that we will, coal is driving our economy but it one day will not be used , not in its current form.
We see alarmist talk about coal, peak oil, and nuclear, what next?
Candles and timber fires for every one and two horses out the back?

“They are presently generating electricity in the region of A$50 per MWhr including all capital and waste handling costs and has nearly the lowest cost of electricity in Europe.

Excellent appraisal SM on an industry draining the public coffers, a grim reaper which is neither economical, ethical or ecologically sustainable:

1. France has 210 abandoned uranium mines and the removal of the leftover radioactive dirt — along with radioactively contaminated rocks, has been used in school playgrounds and ski-resort parking lots. All efforts to force French nuclear conglomerate, Areva to clean up its mess have so far been met with resistance

2. An alert on a major uranium spill at a nuclear processing plant last year was denied to the public for 14 hours. Areva’s subsidiary at Tricastin, contaminated two rivers. The leak constitutes ‘only’ 130 times the level this reactor alone is permitted to release in an entire year. France’s nuclear safety agency said the uranium solution was "toxic but only slightly radioactive." And that’s supposed to be reassuring is it even though the radioactivity levels caused by the leak are 6000 times higher than regulatory limits allow?

Then three more accidents in the region followed, prompting the French environment minister to order radioactive readings at all 58 operating French reactors.

3. March 2009: One million protesters took part in over 200 protests across France in the second round of strikes and rallies. Sarkozy has refused to contemplate union demands for pay hikes or job protection.

Energy workers cut off 6,000 megawatts of French electricity production capacity overnight, including 14 percent of nuclear capacity in 11 different plants.

4. July 2009: France has been forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action.

Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C.

Whoops! Still with us SM?

“No one would seriously consider designing reactors here. Australia has as much nuclear experience as the Amish have electronic experience due to our heads in the sand policy.”

The Amish, SM? Right… then you must be delighted to learn that the lead designer and manufacturer of the Lucas Heights OPAL reactor were the Argentineans and I understand that the reactor has already received seven awards in Australia – bravo!

It took ANSTO three months to discover that the reactor was suffering a serious operating problem - yet another nuclear dud! The reactor was shut down for ten months which I daresay would have been a major embarrassment and a setback to the credibility of ANSTO and Ziggy Switkowski, hand picked head of Howard's pro-nuclear review and advocate of 25 nuclear reactors for Australia by 2050. Huh?

There also remains a warranty disputation and the threat of litigation over the construction of the Lucas Heights reactor. Then there is the issue of the loss of revenue as a result of the shutdown, another significant drain on the public purse to support the status quo in a flawed and dangerous nuclear industry:

http://greensmps.org.au/content/transcript/estimates-hearings-ansto-and-lucas-heights

“I am sure that Dr Ben McNeil, a Lecturer and Research Fellow at the Climate & Environmental Dynamics Laboratory is the correct person to comment on the nuclear energy report. Is it possible he might have his own agenda? Ya think?”

No SM, I don’t "think" and why should I? Please enlighten me. Dr Ben McNeil has a Ph.D in Engineering and a Masters degree in Economics and is well qualified in mathematics, statistics, and financial theory to study the economics of a nuclear industry.

Therefore what is McNeil’s “agenda?" The agenda to which you slyly refer? Has he taken a bribe? Has someone put the thumb screws on him? Or has he inadvertently exposed you as an idiot? Please explain?

Protagorass,

Back to your cut and paste "chicken little" posting again?

From your first post:

1 - is a lie. From mines, the non uranium bearing rock and soil that was removed from the surface to expose the ore was distributed. From the hundreds of sites inspected only 8 were found to have radioactivity marginally higher than background, and clean up is nearly complete.

2 - Unrefined uranium is roughly as toxic as lead, and while the spill is serious, compared to other industries, the "chicken little approach is an over reaction.

3 - is a HR issue

4 - The operating license stipulates that the plants can't discharge at about 25C, and this poses a problem if the water into the plant is higher than 25C. This condition has subsequently been changed.

For Dr Ben McNeil's qualification you should see:

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/misc/bmcneil_cv_long.pdf

He does not have a Phd in engineering (Southern Ocean Carbon Cycling) and his primary degree is B Eng (environmental). His Masters is on the Australian political economy. His papers have nothing to do with nuclear (other than the one quoted).

And as far as agenda is concerned, he is publicly pushing the anti nuke agenda on the ABC on Sept 12th.

For god's sake, you look like an idiot again. Check your facts.

I read his paper, and it has so many serious flaws that I am glad he does not call himself an engineer.

The single major flaw is that he is comparing us agains the US model, which is to have individual organisations building completely separate designs, requiring individual certification and testing regimes. If we follow that model, then he is correct.

However, if we follow the French model where a single design is tested and approved, and reproduced multiple times, the construction time and cost are reduced dramatically (by nearly 50% in both cases.) and is being followed by most other EU countries as they ramp up their nuclear capacity.

I am sure that Switowski in drawing up the proposal did not model the nuclear future on a worst case scenario.

“1 - is a lie. From mines, the non uranium bearing rock and soil that was removed from the surface to expose the ore was distributed. From the hundreds of sites inspected only 8 were found to have radioactivity marginally higher than background, and clean up is nearly complete.”

“Lies” SM? Links please? I remind you that I had referred to *radioactive* dirt and *radioactively* contaminated rocks, not the “non uranium” red herring you tossed in.

“At all of the French uranium mines where it made radiological surveys, the Commission de Recherche et d'Information Indépendantes sur la Radioactivité (CRIIRAD) laboratory discovered situations of environmental contamination and a lack of proper protection of the inhabitants against health risks due to ionizing radiation.”

The documentary: “The Scandal of Contaminated France,” went to air this year, despite Areva’s( France’s primarily, state owned nuclear giant) desperate attempts to have it banned. As a result, citizens of France are no longer asleep at the wheel:

http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.criirad.org/&ei=UHucSsmZA8zUkAWdqsC8Bg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DCommission%2Bde%2BRecherche%2Bet%2Bd%2527Information%2BInd%25C3%25A9pendantes%2Bsur%2Bla%2BRadioactivit%25C3%25A9%2B%2Buranium%2Bmines%26hl%3Den

http://www.alternet.org/world/132852/the_french_nuclear_industry_is_bad_enough_in_france%3b_let's_not_expand_it_to_the_u.s./?page=entire

The ongoing plundering of Niger by French nuclear giant Areva:

http://en.afrik.com/article15648.html

No doubt SM you will advise that the authors of the above publications do not have your “expertise” on all things nuclear, nevertheless, I must say that your rants are real rib ticklers but propaganda and hoodwinks eventually lead to a fall, particularly your ignorant criticism of McNeil’s very appropriate credentials for analysing the operations of a nuclear industry.

contd....