It is estimated by the productivity commission that a price of $40/t is required to trigger a change in the electricity generation, that the price is likely to fall to $13/t if an ETS is in place in 2015, and the $10bn fund for the Greens' technology program is unlikely to generate more than a few % of Australia's needs. In fact even Labors' best projections are that under the carbon tax emissions will still increase by 7% by 2020.

Given the above, without a cheap safe base load supply, such as Nuclear energy, the only result of the carbon tax will be higher costs.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-plan/nuclear-power-the-only-viable-option-against-rising-energy-costs-says-think-tank/story-fn99tjf2-1226191528867

Nuclear power could be a referendum, but then you have to get over where to put them. Alt energy is supplying 100% of my power. There is no reason why households or small business have to bye dirty power, leave that for big business to fight over. Maintenance costs on power plants is enormous, and with added carbon costs, you will see something give in alt energy, which is mostly free running. It is about time to give over on the scare tactics, the scene is set.

I have always strongly supported Nuclear power in this country.
It is not true, in my opinion, in fact far from true, that it is the only option to reduce Carbon.
Japan wakened me to a truth.
It proved we just can not trust humans.
Poorly built, and told so, in dangerous areas and told so, they had to fall .
Still faced with awful untrusted management from the first minutes of the tsunami to this very hour, We may wait a long time to get it.
I however think the thread will be of interest, and that in office,remember Abbott too wants to cut emissions.
He will stay on the tax then price and both party's haveing the same policy's we may return to this subject in two years just to amuse our selves.

579, can you give some indication of how many jobs are supported with you choice of power source?

Now I am assuming next to zero, if so, what do you suggest we do about all the out of work power workers as they would also have no ongoing work if we all follow your lead.

Rechtub/Shadow Minister, this complex and two part issue needs thought.
An open mind is a requirement before considering such.
The Japan disaster questions even my entrenched support for Nuclear power.
I just do not know if we can trust the humans involved it its use.
And Carbon pricing.
Well throwing hands full of feathers at the subject, usually into a strong wind and in the wrong direction is unproductive.
Above all the intention is, to cut our emissions, not the worlds.
But yes to get involved in doing that too.
Our first step, not a big one or harsh one, is a start.
A reason for those not yet started to do so.
And, importantly, as we all know, we can not forever use fuels that will run out, or that pollute.
So of most importance, in taxing both we get in early, force change, make research worth while and reward those putting new clean energy forward while imposing costs on those unwilling to change.
579, stay the course, you understand as I do, new jobs, some not even invented yet, will replace old ones as it always has been.
And a look back to this time, in ten years, will provide great humor and fun.
An author could do worse than start putting posts away for a future humorous series of books.
The fallacy's of fear,,,Australian politics and policy's as she ain't!

I have been watching a bit of question time recently and of cause the carbon tax often comes up.

I noted in her response, sen Wong accused the libs of backflipping on thier support for for a price on carbon, saying, that Howard went to th polls in 07 with a price on carbon, also saying that they have now withdrawn their support.

Of cause sen wong knows full well that the rest of the world changed it's mind after the GFC?

Typical misleading politics from this out of control government.

And belly, given you are pro tax, you obviously believe that for very job lost with this tax, one will emerge.

Would you kindly explain as to where these new jobs will come from?

Or, are you just assuming they will magically appear.

A huge risk if you ask me.

Butch You should be commended for your concern on employment issues surrounding alt energy fuels. If we had a down trodden govt; in power that thought that way, none of the hard issues would have ever taken place. We are 2 percentage points off full employment. Maybe you are over reacting some what. Nuclear power is an issue on its own, i have not seen an example that could not fail in future dates as yet.
Misleading politics from who! Roll back Tony is surely got to take that prize. When you think the libs have done nothing but negatively abuse every effort to do any thing positive for this country, even to the point of politicking in kindergartens, while important discussions are taking place, their absence is noticeable by public concern.

The Japanese nuclear power problem after the tsunami is the result of poor civil engineering not poor reactor design.
Nuclear power plants could be built on large barges floating on cooling water "lakes" at least 30m above sea level.
For example, on the western side of the Dividing Range,(and even on the eastern side) in Australia there are many elevated dams capable of supplying back up water for the cooling lakes. Floating barges would not be earthquake prone. The Russians with atomic powered icebreakers and and the Yanks with their nuclear powered carriers have shown how to use vessels as support mechanisms for atomic reactors. We just need designers capable of lateral thinking.

Belly,

I was a student in 1985, and there was a period when there were a string of major air accidents, with nearly 4000 killed in multiple large jet crashes. (more than killed with nuclear power since 1945). As air travel was essential, the Green's precautionary principle (of simply shutting down air travel) was not considered a viable option. This lead to failure analysis systems such as TQM etc, which lead to the ultra low level of accidents we have today.

Similarly the plants at Chernobyl and Fukushima were of 50's and 70's vintage, and were both close to retirement. The only design failure of the Fukushima plant was that they had designed for a 10m Tsunami and a 14m wave hit which was the biggest in recorded history.

The plants of today are very different, and much work has gone towards making them inherently safe, which means that even if all the safeties fail (as happened in Fukushima) that an orderly shut down is still possible.

Given the absence of base load renewable power generation, the carbon price cannot force a complete move to renewable power, only increase the cost.

France is the only OECD country to reduce emissions below 1990 levels already, and has done so cheaply and safely with nuclear. China and India's main push for non carbon energy is also nuclear with plans for about 10 new nuclear plants per year each.

Nuclear power and nuclear waste are too important issues to be left at the mercy of incompetent governments and corporations who put other interests before safety.

No matter the brilliance of technology, human error whether it be greed or incompetence, is always with us.

It is not worth the risk. Isn't Japan and Chernobyl enough to convince people that the reality is different to the dream of nuclear.

Exactly the opposite pelican.

They are enough to show us that even a major nuclear accident, either man or nature driven, is a very minor happening, & soon obliterated in the scheme of things.

Hasbeen I would not call a nuclear accident a minor event. The long term effects of radioactivity make any accident or debates about storage or disposal a major issue.

What you probably meant I think is a rare event. However, a few rare events involving nuclear accidents have a longer term impact than a plane accident or natural disaster.

There's lots of ways to make steam without nuclear. The biggest trouble with nuclear other than the safety aspects is, it has no stop switch.
Steam produced by friction is instant and regulatable. It is also happens to be safe. Stuck in a trench of old ideas does not clean up electricity.

There is all that heat down there in the granite.
Surely a Manhattan style project would either solve that one or prove
that it cannot be done.
If successful it would probably be quicker than building nuclear power.
The Japanese reactors should have been built on their west coast away
from the rim of fire in the continental plates.

As far as Chernobyl is concerned the Russians were warned of exactly
the problem that occured at a conference in Vienna in 1956.
They chose to ignore the warning.

John Turner welcome.
I doubt we would be any safer or even need Nuclear on lakes.
We just do not have such earth quakes.
I Shadow Minister have always held the same view as you on this issue.
But Japan bought a truth home, we are poorly served by people in change of these things.
We know Murder was committed in America, to stop a spill being made public.
I see this, not unlike you see NBN.
You think, based on your comments, NBN will be out dated not long after it is put in place.
I approve of the NBN.
But understand it will be old hat, in my view in less than 20 years.
Advances talk of power sources better than Nuclear.
I doubt Australians are ready, we got close before Japan, and may still go there.
I hope it is done very well, we know about Russia,now Japan.
It remains however true, by going Nuclear and selling our uranium to other we cut much more than this country's total emissions.
Rechtub not avoiding your question but no psychic either.

And this is my point belly, nor can the government and, it's not that I am against a price on carbon, or Etta ting more from our minerals, it's just that the timing is all wrong.

Apart from mining, what else can we rely on to prop up our economy.

Sorry, it's just to risky right now.

I am with you with regards to nuclear power though. We have enough open space and thanks to the CSG industry, more water that we can poke a stick at.

Perhaps these two industries can work together.

Your view Rechtub, much like mine, comes from failure.
In my case I have not yet put enough effort in to replying to your question, and truly do not know SOME of those jobs.
You take your advice from a firm forgetfulness/refusal to consider the facts.
Jobs will be created in these areas, green energy , building such and installing .
Forestry, a part of carbon control that will grow.
Others may wish to contribute but mate, a basic, in your life time old jobs are no longer in existence.
Whole new industry's come in to existence .
Computers bought about thousands of jobs, in that time.
Every person, employed now, in solar/wind power/every current green energy job, never existed at your birth.
Leave bias in the drawer, understand hard as it can be,both sides intend to cut emissions by the same amount.
And in 5 years, remind your self of your opinions,and Abbott's promises he has made compare both with the reality.

The proposals that were put forward by the Howard Government for nuclear power was evidence enough for me that incompetency cannot work with nuclear. All the suggested sites were coastal and many in disaster prone areas of northern QLD.

Germany is abandoning nuclear power with a planned 11 year phase out.

Japan is re-thinking its nuclear power position.

So far Australia has been smart on this issue, will vested business interests win again over good policy? Time will tell.

Nuclear power is not the "cheaper and safer" option, suggested by the opposition leader. The cost of security to keep the stations safe is huge. In every country in the world, nuclear power is heavily subsidised by their Governments. He says that they have less carbon emissions. I didn't think the opposition were serious about carbon emissions. In any case, nuclear power stations do emit substantial measure carbon emissions. Safe? Where are you going to build it? Newcastle? It's on a fault-line, yes it has earth quakes. Brisbane? It floods there. Sydney? High population, and in the same fault line as Newcastle, yes Sydney can have Earthquakes. The Opposition leader spoke an agenda, not facts and figures in the real world.

Lake Burley Griffin would have to be the perfect place.

Mid way between the biggest power users, water for cooling, no tsunamis, & it might frighten those Green twits into running away.

What I usually find is that the more fixated the poster is that renewable energy can replace fossil fuels, the less he or she knows of power generation or distribution. This thread is no exception in that it has attracted the uninformed to indulge their fantasies about what renewable energy is capable of. For example "Steam produced by friction is instant and regulatable". This is fantastic. Where can I find this friction, and how can I harness it. It has certainly eluded the finest minds for decades.

As for "existing" technologies, I hear people banging on about the "hot rocks" project. It has failed over decades to produce a single commercially viable plant, but is Australia's saviour. The next furphy is the solar storage system, which can produce power for an extended period (about 16hrs) but generates power at about 20x the cost of coal, or more than 2x the cost of nuclear.

Similarly the two nuclear accidents while economically very expensive skilled fewer people than a single large plane crash, and happened in plants that were built before most of us were born. The outrage that Pelican expresses is out of proportion to the event. The damage from the Tsunami that killed nearly 30 000 and devastated thousands of sq km completely dwarfs the nuclear incident.

Nuclear is still safer per kW generated than solar or wind, and certainly far cheaper. Until renewable energy moves from the possible (but hugely expensive) to the practical, without nuclear, the carbon tax can only push up the cost of energy without any significant reductions in emissions.

SM
You are being disingenuous. How could my response be described in any way as outraged? I am merely stating the facts as I see it in the same way as you are expressing your pro-nuclear stance. I thought you to be better than that despite the fact we disagree on almost every issue. If the pro-nuclear power argument is so weak as to invite ad hominem attacks on those who are anti-nuclear power maybe you need to revisit your assumptions about nuclear.

It is not difficult to put forward a POV in any discussion without resorting to personalities. Play the ball and all that.

Mind you I would be outraged if a nuclear power plant was based on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin especially as it would probably be done without consultation with residents.

Pelican,

You delicate flower.

That was not an ad hominem attack, firstly it was my assessment of your blustering, and not a personal attack (thus not by definition ad hominem) and secondly, using grandiose language like " was evidence enough for me that incompetency cannot work with nuclear" is a far cry from rational debate, and so my opinion stands.

As far as facts are concerned, perhaps you could give ma a body count from Fukushima, as compared to the Tsunami? How many years will it take to clean up the thousands of square kilometres of farmland from the salt contamination.

In 25 years since Chernobyl, there has only been one accident, with almost no casualties after the plant was destroyed not by human error, but by the biggest wave in recorded history. If the Fukushima reactors had been in Queensland, they would not not have even hiccuped. So you are being disingenuous.

The issue is that nuclear is still by far the safest generator of electricity, as flying is now the safest form of travel. An accident no matter how spectacular does not change this fact.

Without nuclear the war against climate change is a lost cause.

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but why can't nuclear plants be set up in western qld, away from prime farming areas, where there is an abundance of water being produced from the CSG industry.

Apart from large volumes of water, what else is needed for nuclear generation and, could this power be simply fed into the existing grids.

I am sure there are areas in other states like this, known here as, light Forrest country.

As I have said, I am all over the shop on this one.
I know Germany is saying it is fazing out its Nuclear power.
Yet that France has massive numbers of them.
I agree with Labors retracting its head out of the sand, selling India the needed Uranium.
We must not forget they will get and have it already.
And also will have as many plants as France half way through this century.
Floating on a lake,no way!
We have to admit it, no way around building these things here would drop world wide carbon and other gasses more than any known action we ever could take.
IF power stations could be placed away from populations, far away,and be much much safer than some.
We may yet get Nuclear power stations in Australia, while still concerned I am prepared to go back to my first position.
A well worth while subject extension could be,how do we change if not Nuclear.
I am not saying the government tax is wrong.
In fact, in time it may well Drive/give birth to,the answer to my question.

SM
No delicate flower here, just pulling you up on your consistently partisan modus operandi as your latest post illustrates with the use of emotive terms like 'blustering'.

If planning to locate nuclear plants along the Eastern seaboard in high population areas prone to disasters does not meet your criteria for incompetence that only proves our criteria for incompetence to be set at a different standard.

Nuclear is always a divisive issue but why don't humans learn from history? Human error and incompetence and the rush for profit over safety will always be an issue with nuclear as with any other business. Add to that some developing nations are going nuclear with little deference to governance or accountability and a degree of corruption and you have a recipe for disaster.

IMO it is too risky to contemplate. Nuclear is also a risk for contamination of ground water and that will have wide effects.

The real problem is the elephant in the room - overpopulation and the pressures on resources. Better to improve renewables with some back up from coal fire power. Minimising dependence on coal is a good move but going nuclear just brings a new set of problems. The truth of the matter is if population growth is going to explode all of us will have to reduce our power consumption no matter what the energy type. Nuclear is only a short term stop gap in any case, so why not start with something more sustainable.

Pelican,

Take the plank out of your eye before telling me to remove the speck. Using the term incompetent to label those that disagree with your extreme viewpoint is generously described as bluster and a more correct term would violate OLO's rules.

An earthquake and Tsunami of the nature that destroyed the Fukushima plant would obliterate Australia's eastern seaboard, as it did much of Japan's. Even then, no one is seriously contemplating building reactors to 1970's standards, just as 1970's cars and planes would no longer be in acceptable if brought to production today. The modern reactors would most probably be able to shut down through a cataclysm that would obliterate the city it feeds, even though the Australian eastern seaboard is nowhere near fault lines as is Japan.

Perhaps instead of banging on about the "dangers" of nuclear power, perhaps you can suggest an alternative?

China has said it will burn all our coal. So why don't we stop export
of coal and we burn it instead over the next few hundred years ?

That will make the greens happy as the co2 rate will be reduced.
The greens will be happy as no nuclear power.
The miners will be happy.

So we would then have more time to get the geothermal going.

Re Nuclear cooling, is there a practical reason air cooling cannot be
used for nuclear power stations ?
It would need lots of air flow of course but wind tunnel sized blowers
might do the job.

You can attack me all you like SM but while it might make you feel might, it does not change the facts around nuclear. I am less confident that human beings are able to navigate the risks inherent in nuclear power? (Not to mention the risks around nuclear warfare but that is another story)

I have already suggested the alternative - renewables with coal power as the back up until renewable technology advances to where fossil fuel power is reduced sufficiently to reverse any global warming impact that might be caused by human activity. Even if you don't subscribe to man-induced global warming, anything that produces less pollution is surely a positive result. (Something the Carbon Tax won't do just as an aside)

I hold more faith in the creativity of human endeavour to improve on renewables than to navigate the political, scientific and human fallibilities influencing nuclear power.

Even advocates of nuclear understand the finite resource of uranium would mean only (9-30 years depending on who you believe) of power (excluding the even more difficult extraction from less concentrated ore veins which requires vast amounts of fossil fuels).

The amount of fossil fuel power required to extract uranium, transport it and in waste disposal makes a mockery of it as an 'alternative' to fossil fuels.

Nuclear power stations already emit radioactive gases and elements into the environment, all approved by governments under 'regulatory' regimes.

The long term consequences of nuclear power in the event of an accident means irreversible long term impacts. Renewables are not perfect and there is much to be improved incuding minimising the use of fossil fuel power to construct renewabe infrastructure even in the short term, but the arguments for and against nuclear need to be closely examined before rushing to it as the solution to climate change.

From my own research and readings the argument falls clearly on the anti-nuclear stance.

Australia is looking to increase uranium exports after pressure from the US. We really are destined to follow rather than lead on this issue.

I wonder how long it takes for the pain of an empty belly, [sorry mate] to over come the warm fuzzy feeling?

Pelican,

You don't even try and tell the truth:

"Even advocates of nuclear understand the finite resource of uranium would mean only (9-30 years depending on who you believe) of power (excluding the even more difficult extraction from less concentrated ore veins which requires vast amounts of fossil fuels)."

Is a bald faced lie, and you know it. The cost of raw uranium in the production of power is a fraction of a percent, and with reprocessing there is enough uranium for centuries even thousands of years. With Thorium, there is enough for hundreds of times that.

The greenie rags will find some idiot that produced a paper that suits their views, and then they will take it as gospel, and expand on it. This is a prime example.

And the personal invective continues in the face of a losing argument.

I doubt you are a nuclear scientist. Nor am I. However, I have read extensively on this subject due to a strong interest in this debate and in keeping Australia Nuclear Free.

Again, accusing somebody to be a liar just because they disagree with your POV is a low act IMO and just puts your own position in a poor light. This is just cowardice.

I have nothing to gain from 'lying' about the risks inherent in nuclear power nor do the thousands of other people including many scientists. If I thought nuclear would solve the world's power and environmental issues I would jump at it. But it does not.

You can ignore the obvious human error in Fukishima, Chernobyl and Long Island at your peril. No matter what regulatory regimes are in place, the fact is people will not always comply especially if there is dollar to be made in cost cutting.

Your own faith in the current ALP government is poor yet you seem to have great confidence in the government being able to oversight such an important program.

I accused of telling a lie, because you told a lie, and I noticed that you completely avoided the 9-30year uranium availability porkie you told. This is not a POV.

I am not a nuclear scientist, but I am an engineer with extensive experience in power generation. From your statement I sense no uni or at best an arts degree. Your verbiage is only possible from a position of ignorance.

A lie is a statement told knowing it to be false. I did no such thing, simple as that SM. You can spin your ignorant personal attacks as much as you like but the emperor is still not wearing any clothes.

Your attacks are meant to hide failure to address any of the points made such as the issues of fossil fuels required to power reactors, waste disposal, risk of radiation contamination and transportation issues just to name a few.

Dr Helen Caldicott along with others has done a lot of research on this issue and I suggest reading some of her books before righting her off as a greenie radical.

We were discussing uranium not thorium. Australia is exporting uranium to India, not thorium (although that might come later). Thorium technology is not so advanced to be making broad statements about it's use at this stage. Geoscience Australia document describes the potential of thorium but it is a field still being researched.

http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/mineral-resources/thorium.html
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2007-08/08rp11.pdf

As you will see from the document above even if technical issues are addressed there are still environmental factors. Or do you just cherrypick what you like and ignore the rest. Thorium may prove to be a solution in part if the environmental issues are addressed but unlike yourself I will wait for the evidence to come in.

The worst sort of radical greenies are those who think nuclear power will solve environmental problems, just replacing one problem with an different kind, one with long term impacts.

It is all very well to argue 'well the Russians were warned about blah blah' etc, but the fact is we are talking about human error and human failings. Radioactive substances and human folly/incompetence is a dangerous mix, especially when there are other alternatives.

The fact is human beings need to reduce their energy use - we are massive wasters in the West. Better to sort out problems of economic inequity and overpopulation.

Your statement that nuclear is 'the only viable option' is simply wrong IMO.

"A lie is a statement told knowing it to be false"

Exactly, we have had this conversation before, and I have published the links from reputable sources on known reserves of 100s of years, and yet you continue to spout the unsupported position that uranium reserves are limited.

HC is just as bad, reproducing these urban myths, and quoting selectively excised information to support her prejudice.

As for the consumption of fossil fuels for nuclear, considering the tiny quantity of uranium required to power a nuclear plant compared to coal this is patently ridiculous. For example, Hazel wood consumes more tons of coal in a week than the quantity of uranium used by the world in the last 40 years.

As for Thorium, two test reactors are soon to be commissioned, but considering the low price of uranium and its availability, it will be a while before the change over can be justified or needed.

Shadow and Pelican,
I we banned export of coal we would have enough to
last hundreds of years and we would cut down the the CO2 by many times
as it would not be burnt overseas.
Then as oil winds down it would reduce CO2 also.
Now that should make the greens happy and we would have cheap power
for a long time and would exceed the 2050 target for co2 if anyone
will be concerned about that by then.

We would not need the expense of nuclear power and by 2050 we may have
managed to rebuild the world economy and have a method to replace growth.
By 2050 thorium reactors might be all the go and available in kit form.

SM
Just because you say something or post a link does not make it the 'truth' and subsequently does not mean the other party is 'lying'.

Bazz
Would we get away with not exporting our resources without international response? Thorium may well provide some options but it is not there yet in terms of the environmental aspects.

Australia certainly has enough gas reserves to replace oil if needed.

I would just hate to see human beings destroy vast areas of the planet making them unliveable for thousands of years through incompetent handling of nuclear options.

Unfortunately my faith is not all that strong in governments or private corporations to handle such a responsibility. Best to leave it alone altogether IMO.

Pelican said;
Would we get away with not exporting our resources without international response?

Well that is a risk of course. It is something the pollies of the time
would have to make the decision. Maybe if we promise to export to the
US they would be prepared to scare off others.

Natural gas should not be exported because from what I have read there
may not be as much gas as many jornalists are saying.
There have been a couple of articles on the Oil Drum about the fast
depletion rate of shale gas wells. Not sure how that would relate to
coal seam gas wells. Gas wells normally have a much shorter life
than oil wells and they deplete very fast once peak is reached.

We have left it too late to make a smooth transition to whatever the
next era's energy supply will be.
I believe it is inevitable that we will now go through an extended
period of winding back to a period like the start of the 20th century.

What would worry me if I was to be here to see it would be the effect
of the systemic collapse that can be a feature of complex societies.
A few of those that study these things are saying that such a complex
society collapse could happen quite soon in the future.

I am not so sure as we have a community memory of how everything
worked a 100 years back. Imagine the groans if the internet went one
day and the telephone system the next day !
Well some believe that would be the end of the world, but I think we
would adapt pretty quick.

Dear Pelly,

I'm 100% with you on this issue. As are many European countries
who have chosen to phase out nuclear power while others are
totally rejecting it.

In the years immediately after World War II nuclear power was seen
as the energy resource of the future - one that would provide
electricity "too cheap to meter." Today, nuclear reactors seem
like monuments to a god that failed. There are over 200 nuclear
plants in some twenty-five countries, but many of them are
managerial, financial, or engineering disasters.

The principal public fear is that a "meltdown" at a nuclear reactor
could release a plume of deadly radiation into the atmosphere,
perhaps before people in surrounding communities could be warned and
evacuated. Despite constant assurances from the industry that
nuclear reactors are safe, opinion polls show that the public is
unconvinced - especially since the serious nuclear accidents in Japan,
Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl.

Actually, a nuclear accident of
much greater magnitude occurred near Kyshtym in Russia in the late
1950s (Google it), spreading radioactive debris over a wide area which
will be uninhabitable for centuries.

The full story of this disaster has never been told, but the names of
about 30 small towns in the region have disappeared from Russian
maps and an elaborate system of canals has been built, to carry
rivers and other water systems around the contaminated area.

Nuclear reactors produce notoriously hazardous wastes. What is needed
is a place that will safely contain the waste for at least 10,000
years, which is long enough for most of it to decay. The location of
such a site is a ticklish political problem, for the obvious reason
that people are generally unenthused about the prospect of having a
radioactive dump in their own neighbourhood.

In Australia we have the added problem of a fresh water supply.
There is large storage of underground water in aquifers
which the rural farming population relies on. Storing toxic
nuclear waste underground could poison our undergound water supplies.

I think, like you - we'd be better off giving nuclear power a miss.

Nuclear reactors were a horse pushing a carriage, it is ok to have a permanent heat rod but what to do with it when it is finished. That should have come before any thing else. And the problem still goes on.
In this country we do not need such things, there is a host of alternatives not yet fully exploited. The legacy of neuk, reactors are going to be around for hundreds of years. The indigenous people knew where the uranium was, they called it sickness mountain, and not to go there.

Pelican,

Having claimed to be widely read on the subject the statement "Even advocates of nuclear understand the finite resource of uranium would mean only (9-30 years depending on who you believe)" can only be a deliberate false hood.

Having read the mineral reserve reports of the big miners, and those summarized by the IAEA there is nothing to indicate that there is anything less than several hundreds of years of uranium supply at present easy extraction, and 10x that at slightly more difficult extraction.

There is only one article published by a post grad student that indicates otherwise, that also did not pass peer review.

Having had access to this information previously, what you posted was a deliberate lie. I believe that you have no interest in the truth and are quite happy to continuously repost the same falsehoods.

France has led the way in reprocessing waste to reduce its volume 10 fold and to reuse spent rods.

Since again no one has provided an alternative to fossil fuels, the choice is nuclear or climate change.

Lexi
Well stated. It beggars belief that so many people think nuclear is a 'viable' option in the face of the evidence before them. How many Fukishimas will it take before people wake up. The risk management factors alone should give one more than just pause for thought.

SM
None of my comments were deliberate falshoods. That figure came straight out of Dr Helen Caldicott's book on why nuclear is not an option. I added the bracketed piece '...depending on who you believe' specifically because I had read other articles/books where different figures were provided. Hardly a falsehood if I am offering that there is some dispute on the longevity of uranium supplies.

What is your agenda or motivation in tossing out so liberally accusations of lying. Continuing along the line of personal attacks in the mistaken belief this strengthen's your own position is a poor strategy and one that only reflects on your own position So be it.

Still no response on issues of environmental impact and waste disposal I see nor about your unfailing faith in governments of all types to handle these responsibilities.

Dear Pelly,

As one scientist stated in the New Scietist magazine,

"Putting people to work building wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal plants, electric vehicles, and transmission lines
would not only create jobs but also reduce costs due to
health care, crop damage and climate damage - we well as
provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power."

As I stated on another thread - I wouldn't worry about what some
people think. They don't do it very often.

Pelican,

What you posted is a clearly a falsehood. Your claim that it was not a deliberate falsehood is based on your claimed ignorance, which based on the tripe in your posts has a strong ring of truth. However, given that you have been exposed to the correct information yet choose to regurgitate this baloney, indicates that you are deliberately ignorant or worse.

If the only source for this lie is HC then you are far from widely read. HC is quoting from a paper published by a post grad chem eng, with no peer review what so ever, which has been published only in green magazines.

Some of the assumptions he uses have been tested against reality and have failed miserably, for example his estimates of energy consumption for lower grade ore at Rossing uranium in Namibia being more than 10x the actual consumption, and more than the power consumption of the entire country including many other mines and cities. This has been widely published and peer reviewed, but conveniently ignored by the environmental movement.

As far as waste disposal is concerned, if you bothered to read my posts, you would have seen my reference to the reprocessed done by France, which leaves only a small fraction of the original material, at a fraction of the radioactivity left for disposal.

Lexi,

The comment was from an article in Scientific American with back of the cigarette box level of calculations. For example the assumption that the USA would happily spend $25 trillion on renewable generation, and probably twice that on distribution over the next 20 years considering that they are in financial trouble with a debt of $14 trillion is unrealistic. This was a what if scenario thought bubble and not a serious proposal written pre Copenhagen assuming that the whole world would move to non fossil fuel generation.

has anyone done an analysis on whether more people die from heat or cold in this world? Opponents of coal and nuclear energy really are hypocrites.

Lexi, you do have to stop reading these lefty propaganda sheets, they are filling your head with nonsense.

SM,

I'm going to have to go back and look into the quote that
I cited earlier. I'm surprised at your take on it as I
remember thinking at the time that it made sense. However
at present I'm very busy and don't have much time to post.
So you'll have to excuse my not responding in greater detail
to you.

Dear Hasbeen,

Love your sense of humour - as always it's delish!

SM,

I'm back. I found the reference that I cited earlier and I'm
amazed at your dismissive attitude - especially
as an engineer you should be more forward thinking and up
for innovation and new ideas. What was being suggested
was future projections - for population centers in 20 years time. What to aim for in the future. And that at least to me is
not something to dismiss so easily. Different strokes
for different folks though...

You overlooked that fact that in that article - a 2009
Stanford University study ranked energy systems
according to their impacts on global warming,
pollution, water supply, land use, wildlife and other concerns.
"The cost of generating and
transmitting power would be less than the projected cost
per kilowatt-hour for fossil fuels and nuclear power."

According to the study - "the very best options were
wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and hydroelectirc power -
all of which are driven by wind, water or sunlight.
Nuclear power, coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were
all poorer options as were oil and natural gas."

However, as the article pointed out - "it seems that
the lack of political will loom as the biggest obstacle..."

That's always the way though. Sadly.

I think, the thing understated here, about Nuclear Power, beyond incompetence through greed Pelican, (and that is a massive worry), is that the problem of disposal of the waste product associated with nuclear power generation, is endowed, or assigned (if you like), too future generations to deal with. Long after the benefits are all used up, and gone. Whether it be 9 or 30 years.

Stating benefits of 10 times that in support of Nuclear , is the closest thing to an untruth that I have read SM, in this post. As usual you have an agenda and Pshaw to the facts.

Thank you Pelican for your reasonable and well put positions.

Thankfully today, the Independents (particularly Windsor) have drawn timely attention to the CSG industry. I believe CSG is posing a greater threat to the environment than even Nuclear energy.

With CSG you get the pollution and it's immediate effects upon the eco system as you go !.
You've had the energy, but now the eco-system is unusable.

It's a bit like privatising your essential services for a quick buck, only this time the pawn is the ecology.

"Something that was never "theirs" (the miners), or ours to begin with".

Lexi,

From what I could see the article was probably written for the magazine on request, probably framed as "how would the world reach zero emissions by 2030) and given the time span, has some useful information, but some glaring omissions which he acknowledges. I don't imagine that this was submitted as a serious proposal rather as a thought bubble.

For example he comes up with a cost of renewable generation at $100 trillion excluding transmission. Which is kind of like looking at the cost of rail transport excluding the rails.

For large power systems, the cost of transmission is at least equal to the cost of building the generation. For renewables, with smaller and more distant generation (to which he refers) the estimate is probably close to double the cost of generation, but I will be generous and say 1.5x as there can be some re use of existing infrastructure.

Based on this, the cost of totally replacing the present generation in Australia (with base load) would be greater than $5 trillion. Or 5 years GDP. Considering that an additional $800m would rank us with Italy or Spain as far as indebtedness, I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Engineers are more about just generating ideas, the most important part of engineering is to critically evaluate them against cost and ease of implementation. The greens are great at generating thought bubbles not realizing that 99% of them have already been thought of and discarded.

Nuclear plants can be build directly next to existing coal generation plants and use the existing infrastructure, and phase out the coal plants as the Nukes come on line.

SM,

Thank You for such a prompt reply. While I respect your opinion
I still feel strongly that nuclear is not the answer. There are too
many risks involved and the costs of generating and transmitting
power are high.

Over the centuries, our technological
innovations have had greater potential for environmental damage.
Preindustrial societies drew their energy directly from such
natural resources as wind and water. Early industrial societies
utilised indirect energy - for example, burning coal to
produce heat to make steam to drive an engine.

In the modern world we rely extensively on electricity derived
from even more sophisticated sources, such as nuclear reactors.
Each advance yields greater resources of energy,
but it does so at greater risk.
For example, the twin nuclear reactors that were
built in Diablo Canyon, California were built almost directly
on top of an earthquake fracture line, and due to a mixup in
the blueprints, their structural supports were inadvertently
installed back to front.

Therefore the point that I am making is that no matter how
sophisticated or technically advanced an engineering system
may be inevitably by its very nature - no matter how efficiently
it may be maintained - eventually it will wear out and stop functioning.
Or, have a major breakdown
- resulting in an unmanageable catastrophe -
leaking radiation into the environment
and poisoning large areas of the earth's surface. Not to mention
the toxic waste that is generated and has to be disposed of.

In simple terms - take your motor car. It's grand and beautiful
and functions perfectly - but it does have its inevitable end
and ends up on the scrap heap, unless it is involved in an
accident and kills people. So, too a nuclear plant is a "motor
car" on a gigantic scale - except we don't want to accept that
premise.

At least to me, there is no logical reasoning to promote nuclear
when safer alternatives are available.

thinker2
It is always heartening there are people like you and Lexi who will take a moment for pause on nuclear issues. It is important to seek information from various sources before digesting what government and corporate interests dish out as 'truth'.

The Occupy movement is also testament to the fact that there is an end-time to how much people will put up with in terms of corruption of the democratic process and when governments no longer act in the interests of citizens. Nuclear testing proved to be equally unpopular when it was revealed that US citizens were being exposed to the ill-effects of radiation poisoning when testing took place on US soil without consultation and warning. These actions saw the rise of organisations like Greenpeace. The French also bowed to pressure (to the bleedin' obvious) after Moruroa Atoll.

I suspect if the future sees a new push for nuclear power there will be the usual 'radical greenie' ad hominem attacks by the nuclear lobby to further business interests. As if the future of the planet and people are insignificant over short term monetary gain by a small elite.

These are the sorts of tactics used against organisations like Wikileaks or towards whistleblowers who are attacked personally or diminished in the lack of a reasonable response to greater transparency. And I reckon there will be little of that in regard to questions about nuclear waste disposal or locations of power stations in disaster prone areas (as Howard planned).

As previously stated, the risks around nuclear are so high as to be beyond the capability of corporations and governments and nuclear is not the ONLY option. We have already seen what happens as the previous PM Mr Rudd openly put jobs over safety in vote buying exercise as revealed in the review on the insulation fiasco. It is just one example of the dangers of political culture and nuclear. A recipe for disaster as Fukishima and other nuclear travesties demonstrate.

Nothing in life comes without risk, but there is miles of difference between perception and reality.

This article from yesterday sums it up:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12912

For instance, more people have died from toothpicks in the last 40 years than nuclear accidents. Safety procedures have improved dramatically, and as air accidents have dropped 10 fold over the last 30 years, nuclear plants are far safer now than 40 or 50 years ago, and are still responsible for the lowest fatality rate of any power generation in the world.

Until renewable energy generation is available at a cost that won't bankrupt the nation the choice will be nuclear or fossil fuel. While Pelican and others claim that there are other alternatives, they cannot actually say what they are.

SM
I have already stated the options including fossil fuel being better than nuclear overall (ie. best of a bad bunch). Please try and read posts before typing. An emphasis on renewables (particularly but not limited to domestic use), back up from fossil fuels with a reducing dependence, addressing the issues of poverty, education and overpopulation. Prosperity reduces population growth and thus the pressure on energy sources and thus pollution. It is a slow process but long term it is worth approaching from that POV including reducing inequity through economic and foreign policies.

As you know I oppose the Carbon Tax because it will do nothing to reduce emissions, it is just another economic control mechanism that will shift money around from one place to another with only minimal impact on pollution as has been the European experience. Better to attack climate change and pollution from the grassroots as in the first para.

It is too easy to jump to the nuclear option as a fear response without really researching the risk factors. It is all very well to say there is always a risk in anything, but sometimes the risk is too great and better to heed them than just fob it off to some corporate/government risk assessment team which may not always act in our interests. I am sure the people of Fukishima would would rather there governments had this mindset rather than anti-nuclear message being written off as loony environmentalists by those with vested interests

SM,

Thank You for the link you gave us. I can see why you
liked it. The author's opinion matches yours.

Here's a more balanced link.

It provides the pros and cons of
the issue - "Nuclear versus Renewable Sources."

http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=15

I read your link also SM. I thought it interesting that the link you provided to add weight too your opinion is merely another opinion.

A very assumptive and unscientific opinion it was at that.

It was also interesting that the poster thought air pollution more a threat to life, than nuclear contamination. This of course entirely depends on levels of contamination.

Too propose that high levels of air pollution (caused by fossil fuel usage) in Japan justifies the comparative risk associated with nuclear power generation, (and too use the Japanese experience as an example in case) is preposterous SM.

I mean tell that to the Japanese.

They would tell you that renewables would have been preferable in both instances.

Had we not (as a world), quashed a flourishing industry in electric methods of transport way back in the 1920's or so, and instead chose to gas guzzle , maybe even nuclear weapons never would have been considered reasonable or allowed to proliferate, let alone nuclear energy today considered as the answer to the worlds ecological problems.

We digress to go forward in your view I think SM, never learning from past mistakes.

Thinker2 and Lexi,

The thought that living next to the contaminated reactor is less of a hazard than living in the smog of Tokyo seems to have struck a nerve. It might seem preposterous to you, but statistically can be proved. This topic of risk vs. perception has been debated over many completely different areas with legislation focused more on risk perceived by voters than actual risk, with many millions spent reducing risk in politically sensitive areas where the same money spent in other areas could save 1000x as many lives.

How many people have died from radiation from Fukushima? The answer is zero. The contamination has caused huge financial losses, but almost no deaths compared to the about 30000 that perished in the Tsunami.

Can anyone remember the Bhopal disaster in 1984? A chemical leak from a Union Carbide plant killed an estimated 3,000 died within weeks and another 8,000 have since died from gas-related diseases. the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries. A death toll about 80x that of Chernobyl. After Chernobyl everyone forgot, even though as far as human suffering was concerned Chernobyl was a minnow.

As far as waste is concerned, the amount of high level waste from 40 years of nuclear generation in the USA could be stored in the area of a rugby field, and if reprocessed, on an area 1/10th of this. Compared to the amount of really nasty chemical by products from other processes being stored, this is a drop in the ocean.

SM,

I appreciate what you've written and according to your
summation there is no hazard from nuclear reactors.

Please advise us of the area in which you live so we
can make the recommendation to the government to build
the first nuclear facility in your area and please don't
object there will be no hazard to you. And if you don't like
the site of a nuclear reactor - you won't object to us
burying the nucelar waste underground in your area.

BTW: Regarding your statistics concerning Fukushima's deaths -
it takes years for the radiation to take the ultimate effect.
As it did with Chernobyl and Kyshtym - Google them. It also
results in birth defects and makes surrounding areas uninhabitable
as well as poisoning food sources in the broader surrounds.

Lexi,

A typical specious NIMBY argument. Nuclear power has risks, but far lower than most people realize. It would be safer to live next to a nuclear plant than a chemical plant such as Orica or even a furniture factory. However, most people given a choice would prefer not to live in an industrial area.

The proposal to bury nuclear waste in my area is pathetic, as would be a dump for house hold refuse, and not worthy of anyone with an IQ greater than that of a squirrel.

SM,

I suspect that we're not going to get very far in
our discussions of this topic. You see things one
way, I see things another way. I can't help having
a deep-seated fear of nuclear power regardless of
what you're saying. You can't understand my fear.
We've reached a stalemate.

As for anyone's IQ?
That's a different issue altogether - and I wouldn't
go there if I were you. Best we agree to disagree on
this issue and leave it alone. Thanks for allowing me
to present my views on your thread. I'll now leave you
to continue the debate with other posters.

cont'd ...

BTW: Anyone has the potential of ending up
with an IQ of a squirrel once a nation
decides to go nuclear and suffers the
inevitable consequences. That was my point
all along! ;-)

Lexi,

I do assume that you have a reasonable IQ, but the "bury the waste in your area" comment is a stupid school yard tactic not worthy of what you are capable of, and I expected better than that of you

SM,

I realise that I was being flippant at the time
of posting - however I was also frustrated by the
fact that you did not seem to be getting the message
that I was trying to convey so I tried to simplify
things for you. No offense was intended however.

Anyway, just one more thing - according to a recent
article I read -

"Nuclear scientists claim that
public worries about storing nuclear waste will soon
be hypothetical, thanks to the Generation IV fast
reactors on the drawing boards of a consortium of 12
countries and the EU. The concept of an energy system
that makes its own fuel and eats up nearly all its
waste is no pipe dream. Next year, engineers will
decide which of six prototype designs to go for.
Building the prototype will start in 2015 and is
scheduled to be operational by 2020-2025."

Now that is something that just may take care of the
safety problem. Fusion power anyone?

"I do assume that you have a reasonable IQ, but the "bury the waste in your area" comment is a stupid school yard tactic not worthy of what you are capable of, and I expected better than that of you"
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 23 November 2011 12:25:59 PM

As opposed to your own exemplary behaviour? Diminishing people using terms like IQ of a squirrel or calling people liars can hardly be categorised as 'better'.

At the risk of inviting another attack (aaah..what the heck life is short), it is interesting that your rigorous standards of posting appears to only apply to others.

Thats very diplomatic Lexi considering SM referred to you as a specious nimby while you were nailing him. And speaking of raw nerves SM.
So a nuclear power plant in your neighbourhood is OK then ?.

I do agree Lexi there may be a time, when nuclear power generation will be safe ?. That time hasn't come yet.

What is a specious nimby anyway ?. Are you sledging the rural hamlet of Nimbin in NSW ?, by any chance SM.

Pelican and T2,

English not your strong point.

There is more than a subtle difference between remarks aimed at a person's post and remarks aimed at the person.

For example "A typical specious NIMBY argument"
Dictionary definition:- a specious argument.
Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious:

Is not an definition applicable to a person. The same goes for "The proposal - not worthy of anyone with an IQ greater than that of a squirrel." Perhaps I should have used simple language such as the "the proposal is stupid." The term liar applies only to those that post stuff as fact that they are clearly capable of realizing as false.

Pelican, I can see that you would rather there were no action on climate change than use nuclear, and your alternative of coal to back up renewable generation considering that coal generation needs >24hrs to start up is clearly flawed.

The simple reality is:
1 - Renewables are costly and don't yet provide a realistic alternative to base load. Until this changes, addressing climate change will be expensive and largely futile without nuclear.
2 - Nuclear is still the safest generation technology in the world, and the perception of danger is equivalent to the fear of flying.

SM,

Your statement regarding nuclear energy -
that the perception of danger is the
equivalent to the fear of flying is accurate up
to a point. Nuclear energy is still in relatively
early stages of development comparable to flying
at the turn of the twentieth century - when planes
were rather primitive compared to today's developing
technology. Nuclear waste is still a problem. It will
take decades of development of nuclear energy to reach
the levels that we see in science fiction today.

Some countries, in Europe have little choice but to
utilise nuclear power not having the natural advantages
that Australia has. And also their current political,
and economic situations gives them little choice.
As surveys have shown in Europe and elsewhere however, -
the choice of nuclear power is not very popular amongst
people, despite the numerous power stations currently in
use.

This subject of nuclear versus renewable energy sources,
is one that will continue to remain controversial - as
long as the potential for disasters continues to exist.
And as in any democratic and adult discussion - opinions
that differ from our own should be respected - even though
we may not agree with them.

Deat Pelly and Thinker 2,

Thank You for your comments - I value your inputs in
this discussion.

Where in the dictionary do you find Nimby SM.

So once again whilst attempting to make yourself look clever, you fail to address the question. Its not unlike the Liberal National Party's in opposition.

Specious arguments are their specialty and it is very entertaining to listen them go down time and time again on the floor of Parliament.

People like Barnaby Joyce whose whole argument is a fiction backed up by lies, padded by more lies and concluded and summarised with false claims of inevitability. They carry on like little boys and girls whom have had their lollies taken away. Their squirming is audible on radio and their fooling no one.

Frankly either are you SM.

NIMBY (note the CAPITAL letters) is an acronym for

Not In My Back Yard.

There is no such think as a specious NIMBY and I never referred to one.

Comprehension of the written word is important for clarity of any complex topic.

Thank you for clearing that up SM. That is all I was hoping for.

cheers T2