How different the world would be today if almost 40 years ago we had not been "brain washed" by The Sierra Club, GreenPeace and other so-called environmental organizations. Their lies and scare tactics turned nuclear power into a modern day "Boogie Man" and, as a result, forced us to stop building nuclear power plants.

If they hadn't succeeded, by now we would have undoubtedly replaced all fossil fuels with nuclear power...We wouldn't be using oil, foreign or domestic...We wouldn’t be at war in the Middle East…There would be no power shortages…Our electric bill would be a small fraction of what it is today…Our lakes and rivers would be clean...Our air would be fit to breath...We would all be driving cars powered by hydrogen...There would be no ugly oil platforms or windmill farms...Nobody would be worrying about global warming...Not even Al Gore ! !

Now that’s the real “Inconvenient Truth.”

Unless of course that if due to the proliferation of nuclear reactors we had more nuclear "accidents". Considering the technology and human error the risks would have been multiplied manyfold under such a scenario. I mean if there were so many reactors around in this veritable nuclear Utopia, where would all the waste go (or have gone)? By many estimates I have heard , the uranium left will only last us about half a century anyway (if true), and thats if we start building now. It would certainly be debatable whether our water supplies, lakes and rivers would be considered "clean", or at least cleaner than they are now. It doesn't matter anyway, it wasn't the Sierra club or Greenpeace that did it, I think that Windscale started the worry, nuclear weapons proliferation and 3 Mile Island added to the anxiety and Chernobyl pretty much clinched it. Nuclear fission as a technology will not (or even perhaps cannot) be used for a long term solution, just as oil cannot. Time for new ideas.

Call me dumb or naive but how hard is it to bring in large scale solar or wind power,good old shanks pony and Nanna's favourite, Waste Not Want Not!

safety record of nuclear power here:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm

Briefly, between 1970 and 1992 6400 people died in the coal power arena, and 31 for the same time period in nuclear. I think these numbers include mining accidents.

A more up to date figure for nuclear power related deaths is 56 as some of the chernobyl escapees/rescuers have since died.

We know that nuclear provides some 16-18% of electricity, yet has only 1% of the fatalities of coal. And most of the nuclear injury is related to the Chernobyl disaster, a tragedy of errors. Errors that have been learned from.

Hey Bugsy,

Apparently you're one of the "brainwashed" I was referring to. I probably should have included more facts when I started this thread.

The book I have written, NUCLEAR GREEN (Amazon.com,) proves beyond any reasonable doubt that nuclear power is the safest, least expensive method of providing the power that the world needs, and it is virtually inexhaustible.

Statistically, there are 441 nuclear power plants operating today, 103 of which are here in the United States. Many have been in operation for more than 40 years. This does not include the dozens of nuclear powered ships and submarines that also have an impeccable safety record.

Their record is unchallenged.....There have been NO ACCIDENTS OR FATALITIES in these plants or ships relative to their nuclear reactors. In fact, again statistically proven, NUCLEAR POWER IS THE SAFEST INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE WORLD.

These are not my opinions, these are facts ! We must start building new power plants NOW. And here is one of the best reasons. At the present time, worldwide, there are approximately 25 new plants under construction, there are approximately 40 new plants on order, and there at least 113 proposed that are simply awaiting final approval. BUT NONE OF THOSE ARE FOR HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OR IN AUSTRALIA!

That is disgraceful, especially in view of the fact that we are currently learning more about the terrible threats to our environment because of the pollutants the world has been putting into our atmosphere from fossil fuels. Incidentally, Your Prime Minister, John Howard, has a copy of my book. I don't know if he's read it as yet, but his office acknowledged that it had been received.

One last thought about nuclear power. There are many people, including myself, that are alive today because of nuclear power. Thousands of cancers have been cured or stabilized by nuclear radiation. In my case it was the insertion of more than 200 radioactive pellets into my prostate that saved my life.

Is it any wonder that I am a strong supporter of nuclear power?

Hey Rojo,

Thanks for bringing the website http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm to everyone's attention. Although I don't agree with everything they say, I've used that excellent site for much of my research. I hope everyone takes a look at it.

what's more, the supply of yellowcake, unlike oil or coal, is inexhaustible. so never any need to mess with renewables, we'll just drink our pina coladas while watching the sunset, and spent fuel rods can be milled into bicycle frames with a builtin glow-in-the-dark safety feature.

i was very glad to hear that booksales are involved in this post, otherwise we're dealing with psychosis.

that's not fair,really. some people really can't distinguish between 'year after next' and 'never'. i blame 'see and say' literacy teaching.

Hi Demos,

I enjoyed your sarcasm. You're good. I think the time has come, however, to stop the jokes about nuclear power and face the truth...even the inconvenient truth. According to most scientific minds our planet is in danger from global warming. Many ideas have been put forth on how best to stop or even reverse global warming.

Unfortunately, there are also jokes (in most cases, well deserved) about global warming. For example windmills, solar panels and the suggestion by some singer that we use less toilet paper....yeah, that oughta do it!

The truth is that windmills, that have destroyed much of our visual environment, and solar panels that work when there's sunshine are at best just "band-aids" that can't even begin to keep up with population growth.

The "inconvenient truth" however, is that there is one way....and only ONE way...to stop and hopefully reverse global warming. That one way is with clean, safe, inexpensive and inexhaustible nuclear power. Hundreds of nuclear power plants, and eventually thousands, have the ability to clean up this dirty world...if we have the dedication, the political will, and the "guts" to take advantage of nature's greatest gift, NUCLEAR ENERGY.

I strongly urge you to read my book, NUCLEAR GREEN. It is available at Amazon.com in either paperback or hardcover. If you can't afford to purchase one, however, I'll be happy to have the publisher send you the paperback. If you read my book, I'm confident that your next comments will not contain sarcasm.

I can't really see that the world would be hugely different in a practical way. It was probably more the incompetent Soviets with Chernobyl that killed off nuclear power than the greenies.

I doubt that Australia would have nuclear power even now, because while it's reasonably competitive in some markets, it would still be more expensive (though not hugely so) than coal in Australia. The only reason it's now open to some consideration here is that there is possibly (with some level of probability that I'm not debating here) an external cost to coal that has not previously been taken into account.

My main concern with power is that the opposition to nuclear power is resulting in other more expensive "solutions" (I have doubts about whether they really are solutions) are being adopted. Also, the fact that a project requires power is starting to be regarded as an objection in itself (for example, with Sydney's desalinator), rather than merely an economic issue to be taken into account when deciding a project's viability.

Sylvia.

Goddess,

There is a real show stopper when it comes to power supply, which is that we have no economic and practical way of storing energy on a large scale. This seriously impacts on the viability of solar and wind power. In addition, both of those technologies are expensive. Wind farms seem likely to remain expensive forever - they just involve a lot of hardware for the amount of power generated. Solar power will remain expensive absent a major breakthrough in technology, because the existing technologies have already benefited from the usual economies of scale (solar cell manufacture is a multi billion dollar industry).

Denmark has been the poster boy for wind power generation, but even there things are not as they seem. See these links.

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/sharman-winddenmark.pdf

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/White-DenmarkTooGood.pdf

In short, Denmark exports the instability in generation of its wind farms, and there is the possibility that the supposed CO2 benefits are wiped out, or at least much reduced, by the reduced efficiency that the instability causes in conventional power plants.

The easy solutions would be adopted if they worked and were economically viable. If a solution is not adopted, it's either because it doesn't work, or because it's unacceptably expensive.

Sylvia.

I have enjoyed viewing this forum because between you the facts about nuclear power have been laid out in one hit for someone unsure of the whole story such as I.
I've gone from not having an opinion to being pro-nuclear.Thanks guys.

While I am sure that "climate change" is probably the strongest argument in favor of nuclear energy, the rest of the arguments seem pretty bloody weak. For instance, I fail to see the benefits of nuclear medicine (ie putting radioactive pellets near ones genitalia in the cited example) as a reason for adopting nuclear power plants on a large scale. Australia already has a nuclear reactor that produces isotopes for research and medicine, something that I am very much in favor of. I myself have used unsealed radioactive isotopes in the course of my work and am not scared of handling radioactive isotopes. I believe I am far from "brainwashed" as it seems that Ralph Andrews would label anyone who disagrees with his pro-nuclear viewpoint.

However, it seems that in the course of his argument Ralph "Troublemaker" completely ignores many of the ideas of risk assessment and risk management. Yes,nuclear power plants generally have had less direct fatalities and probably less indirect ones as well, than conventional plants. But does anyone stop to consider why exactly this would be the case? Is it because the technology is inherently safer? No. It's because of strict risk management strategies put in place to contain a very high-risk technology. Which has failed (or at least come extremely close to failure) more times than cited by Ralph, especially if one considers nuclear submarines and other types of plants. To understand the inevitability of failure, as most failures are due to human error, you should read "The Logic of Failure" by Dietrich Dorner (amazon.com). Considering the actual number of coal-fired power plants, and the actual number of nuclear plants, and the extra security and risk management protocols put in place for nuclear, I would expect a far lower death or injury rate, in fact considering the risk for environmental release and contamination, I would want a zero accident rate for the technology to be considered "safe". Failure of containment in any case would be considered a disaster.

cont'd

Saying that nuclear power is "safer" because of attributable death rates in this case would be like saying that using a chainsaw is safer than using a stepladder. More deaths occur from step ladder falls per year, but only because of two factors: More people use stepladders, therefore there is more risk someone will injure themselves; and chainsaw operators tend to be more highly trained and have more safety protocols BECAUSE it is inherently MORE dangerous.

Other factors that must be considered include much more than accident rates in reactors. For instance, how many sites in the US contain high-level radioactive waste? How is it currently being handled? How long does this waste have to be cared for? I expect Ralph has all these answers, and hope that they're better than the "nuclear is inexhaustible" argument that I have heard ONLY from him, noone else seems to say this, even nuclear physicists. I would also like to know where this comes from.

And also remember that this nuclear waste was only generated by the small number of reactors that they have built historically- how much more would be produced in the future? Also, the US has had a long history of having a nuclear military, a great source of funds for training technicians and scientists for maintaining civilian reactors. Ditto for many other nuclear countries. Australia does not. Where would we be training our technicians? To maintain a steady supply of personnel to run these reactors we would have to firstly import nearly all of our top-level technicians before a practical training scheme would be self-sustaining and considerable investment in targeted education to get that up and running.

There's a LOT more to a whole picture certainly, but building a large number of nuclear power stations in a short amount of time will leave the experienced personnel required to maintain such facilities in shorter supply than at present, this increases our risks of failure, both short term and long term.

The future will likely involve a number of different technologies and not one single technology, as all have drawbacks.

Of course if we were really opposed to the nuclear option then we would not be providing other people with the means to use that option. Seems to be all right to sell it but not use it... fail to understand that logic - unless of course it has something to do with money....

Troublemaker is certainly living up to the name a real devil's advocate either being mischevious not really believing what is being entered or a person that has obviously something to gain with shares in uranium. The author of the pro debate has no concern for people, life in general or the future of mankind many many countries are at great expense decommissioning these potential nuclear bombs because of the many known cancers to miners and residents alike that are too close within those locations and unfortunately very close to it's proximity. Yes it is todays asbestos to build nuclear reactors is like commencing mining again at Wittenoon. Power to the elbow to those politicians who brought in gun control but to export uranium is to condone the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Who do you think that the united nations are so concerned with Iran and Korea building nuclear reactors. This and this alone shows the double standards with those who have no concern for life only the making of money profit before people. The taxpayer will have to heavily subsidise the nuclear effort to the detriment of wave, wind, tidal and solar power.USE OF RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES IN MEDICAL PRACTICE
we do have need for this
.Subject:
The Nuclear and Uranium Debate
The takers who control the media in the western world have always pushed the pro nuclear issue moulding and manipulating the electorates minds.
They argue that nuclear is safe and is the answer to the global warming.

Those that warned of global warming were called scare mongers. Those that also speak out against nuclear power and nuclear weapons are also labelled scare mongers. Those that are now pushing for nuclear power are those that had no concern about the ozone layer until recently.
Now they want the taxpayer to heavily subsidise nuclear power and believe that Australia is a prime location for nuclear waste. What can we do to stop the push for this known problem, that science has no answer on how to control it ?

We must:-
1) Oppose the approval of any new uranium mines.

2) Oppose the expansion of any existing uranium mines.

3) Oppose any plans to enrich uranium in Australia except for medicine and pharmaceutical purposes.

4) Oppose the development of any nuclear power plants in Australia.

5) Oppose industry that encourages high level radioactive waste plants in Australia.

6) Oppose the development of a high level nuclear waste dump in Australia.

7) Not to over-ride the existing bans by State or territory Labor Governments on uranium mining.

8) Oppose the sale of Australian uranium to any country that is not a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

9) Repeal the existing Commonwealth legislation that enables Federal Government to over-ride the Northern Territories autonomy on management of nuclear issues.

10) Actively promote and support the development of renewable and sustainable power generation.

My family lived very close to Bradwell Nuclear Power Station in Essex and we were part of a Community that campaigned for the closure because of the tremendous amount of various type of cancer deaths that was unexplained especially with school children. Friends of the Earth local Residents Associations and Labour Party Branches were finally successful. (Campaigners and local residents today (Thursday 28 March 2002) welcomed the closure of Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex. The station is due to be shut for decommissioning on Easter Sunday, after 40 years operation. Friends of the Earth today called on the Government to rule out the building of another nuclear power station on the site and to encourage investment in renewable energy, such as wind power instead.) We are all interested to know that if you have any intention of altering, amending or changing our existing policy if we do fall into line with John Howard and his Government in expanding uranium mining this would be a disaster for us all because this would mean that we would be condoning nuclear power and subsequently nuclear weapons. We cannot guarantee that China or Russia would not give uranium or plutonium to Iran.

Neighbours our childrens friends victims of emissions Strotium B 90
My family lived very close to Bradwell Nuclear Power Station in Essex and we were part of a Community that campaigned for the closure because of the tremendous amount of various type of cancer deaths that was unexplained especially with school children. Friends of the Earth local Residents Associations and Labour Party Branches were finally successful. (Campaigners and local residents today (Thursday 28 March 2002) welcomed the closure of Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex. The station is due to be shut for decommissioning on Easter Sunday, after 40 years operation. Friends of the Earth today called on the Government to rule out the building of another nuclear power station on the site and to encourage investment in renewable energy, such as wind power instead.) We are all interested to know that if you have any intention of altering, amending or changing our existing policy if we do fall into line with John Howard and his Government in expanding uranium mining this would be a disaster for us all because this would mean that we would be condoning nuclear power and subsequently nuclear weapons. We cannot guarantee that China or Russia would not give uranium or plutonium to Iran.

In reply to your very first comment in this thread, it's called "Retro stabilisation" where all fuels, natural substances were used for sustainability of every day life at that particular time, technology gave way to more intricate machine design, enabling man to dig deeper, collect more crap than ever before and put grunge to good use! Hence recycling of almost everything we use. When the recycling becomes too boring, some billionaire will cotton on to lassoing the nearest passing comet and bleed that dry too, the boundaries are endless.

Hi Bugsy

This post will be short and sweet. The main difference between us is that you look for reasons why something will fail and I look for reasons why something will succeed.

Yes, nuclear power IS inexhaustible. I have never spoken to a nuclear engineer (as opposed to a "nuclear scientist" who has never even been inside of a power plant) who didn't agree that nuclear power is inexhaustible and the only power source that is (except for the Sun of course, which is also a nuclear power plant -- THE nuclear power plant.

What is not inexhaustible, as far as I know, is uranium. We will probably never run out of uranium, however, because the "waste" (a misnomer) or spent rods are recyclable. If and when we do run out of uranium we will simply use a different fuel, of which there are many.

I hope you will read my book or visit my website (or both). In particular read the information about "nuclear hydrogen" and why I call it that.

I'm not sure that you'd be much fun at a party, but I enjoy your comments, negative though may be. I know...my cup is half full and yours is half empty.

Cheers
Ralph

Yeah, whatever Ralph. The hypocrisy is astounding. You don't seem to be too positive about any other power sources other than nuclear.

It also seems you are alluding to nuclear fusion, which is what drives the sun. Fusion technology would certainly seem to be a way out of this, and is quite different to fission technology. At the moment though, we can't build fusion reactors, since they don't really exist yet, at least not in a properly usable form.

A negative argument is necessary in assessing risks, otherwise you are just whistling dixie. And nuclear fission carries big long-term risks.

I really don't want to see a scenario where we all build a bunch of nuclear reactors, which still may fail to address global warming considering the time it would take and how much of our power would be needed (for making hydrogen we would need a LOT more power than now). Then we would have a lot of reactors to decommission when they run down in 40 years or so and still have warming problems.

do you mind if i just call you 'trouble', for short? you convict yourself of ignorance when you say uranium will never run out. it's a finite resource. f-i-n-i-t-e. there's just so much on the planet. it can be recycled, but not indefinitely. i have seen estimates of 'peak uranium' as low as 2020, made by people vastly more knowledgeable than you. the processing of uranium238 into u235 is not free, it consumes a lot of electricity. mining it is just as difficult as coal, and even more noxious. then there's the residue, so inconvenient- just being near it kills people in wholesale lots.

you may be referring to the possibility of inexhaustible fusion power. this is different technology, so different that confusing the two removes any credibility from your post. fusion power is a long way off in the view of scientists working in the field. for the next 50 years, the choice is simply economic collapse or renewable energy.

but i don't accuse you of being in the pay of mining interests. they generally get more value for their money, in the way of facts, logic, and command of the language. they have john howard on their payroll, they aren't about to waste a shilling on you.

i urge you to take the other side of the argument. much more room for disorganized blather among the amateur bloggers, and if you need money you can distribute your book in direct downloads with help from paypal. if anyone asks why you've switched sides: just call me 'god', and this post 'on the road to damascus'.

The issue of the world running out of uranium to fuel nuclear reactors can be avoided by building fast breeder reactors (FBRs) instead of thermal reactors.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor

That article indicates that at present FBRs are uneconomic compared with thermal reactors because of the low price of uranium. However, that position would change when the price of uranium went up as a result of increased demand and diminishing supply.

Even if it were true that there was only a 40 year life for uranium based nuclear power, that would not be a reason not to go down that route. It would give us a 40 year period during which to find another economic solution, such as perhaps finally getting fusion power to work.

For all the talk of adopting renewables, it has yet to be demonstrated, even on paper, that they are capable of providing a significant proportion of the world's power, let alone doing so at an economically viable cost. The problems associated with intermittency of wind and solar power cannot just be wished away. The links I provided earlier show how Denmark has not solved those problems, but merely sidestepped them by passing them to its power trading neighbours.

Sylvia.

To Demos

You don't read very well. I never said that uranium is inexhaustible. I simply said that, including the reprocessing, we have many years worth of uranium. It is nuclear power itself that is inexhaustible....especially when we finally get to fusion.

I don't appreciate your remark about my depth of knowledge. I have been studying this subject for almost 20 years...not on the scientific side, but on the logic and common sense side. I have based every assursion, every belief and every fact in my book on those two principles. I have had several prominent nuclear engineers endorse my book, and I have received a commendation from Scotland's North Highland College and their "Decommissioning and Environmental Remediation Centre" in Thurso. I'll be happy to send you a copy if you'll simply give me your mailing address or your email address.

Your assessment of my knowledge in this area convinces me that you shoot before you examine your ammunition. I'll be happy to debate anyone, including you, on this rather broad subject.

Hi Sylvia,

It's nice to know that there's at least one person on this thread that doesn't think I'm either senile, uninformed or just plain stupid...or hypocritical.

With respect to your ("uneconomic") comment about costs, etc., I must remind you of the situation in France. Not only do they rely on nuclear for almost all of their power, their electric bill is the smallest in the world and their overall environment is the cleanest in the world. Please go to my website and click on "videos" and select the 60 Minutes segment on French nuclear power. "Atom Annie," as she's known in France as CEO of Areva, makes some excellent points. Simply go to www.nucleargreen.org. Please let me know your reaction to the segment.....or anything else on the site. I think you'll enjoy it.

By the way to all of those who have assumed that I must have stock in Uranium or companies like Areva, let me assure you that I don't. I am not seeking profit with my activities in support of nuclear power. I am doing everything I can to convince people of the logic and common sense that proves the viability and necessity of nuclear power.

Ralph

I will continue to look forward to your posts and not bother with those posts that challenge my motives, ethics or my credibility.

Ralph, I do not question your motives, ethics or credibility. I am sure that you have spent a lot of time thinking about this. But what I see from your posts, I see no reason for me to buy your book. I see a nuclear fanboy that doesn't consider other technologies very much, and thinks all would be (or even would have been!) wonderful with a proliferation of nuclear power plants. It's not a new idea, I myself once thought so too, for the same reasons. But there's a dark side, waiting there in the dumps.

One of my main irks about this whole business is the rank double standard applied by both you and Sylvia when evaluating renewable technologies. They are pretty much summarily dismissed as being intermittent and won't work. period.

But all that's really needed is a method of power storage, which we already have in small scale. The technology doesn't exist yet you say? Well, fusion doesn't either but you're ready to talk that up. Researchers have already achieved 40% efficiency for solar cell technology, so output shouldn't be a problem. For economic liquid fuels there are are number of biotech technologies reseraching the use of algae to produce hydrogen or biodiesel (lipid) fuels.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
These technologies are already proven in concept (unlike fusion), all that needs to be done is making production more efficient and economical for widespread use.

There aren't any silver bullets on energy, there are at best a number of solutions that will work or are inappropriate, depending on the environment, economics and risk.

Bugsy,

Sorry, but the only source of power that is not a sick joke is nuclear. When we have enough plants worldwide, the cost of electricity will be a very tiny fraction of what we now pay. Electricity will be so cheap that the cost of producing hydrogen (nuclear hydrogen) will be so low that driving a car will cost about what it cost 50 years ago (about 50 cents a gallon for premium.) By the way, I believe that nuclear power plants should be built by responsible corporations, like Areva, but I also believe the plants that distribute ALL electricity should be owned and operated by the government. Just as our nuclear powered naval ships are built by corporations but operated by the Navy. Their record is impeccable.

At the invitation of BMW, I went to their huge Engineering and Emission Test Center in Oxnard, California. There I drove the new BMW 7 sedan with a 12 cylinder engine. It looked and performed as good or better than any other car I have ever driven. The big, and I mean BIG, difference is that the car I was driving was running on pure hydrogen. All that came out of it exhaust pipe was pure water. I was thrilled, to say the least. That is the future I'm supporting. There are two main corporations that are presently at the forefront of nuclear/hydrogen technology. They are BMW of Germany and Shell Oil of Holland. Shell is already building or converting gas stations that dispense hydrogen. There are already parts of Europe where there are enough hydrogen gas stations to make driving a hydrogen powered car practical and sensible.

If you would like a copy of my book, I'll be happy to have the publisher send you a free copy....provided you agree to read it, cover to cover....and then comment on it (to me, not the The Forum unless you insist on it.)

Bugsy,

As regards storage technologies, I assume you mean the Vanadium Redox Battery, or VRB. This is actually not new, but was patented in 1986.

The technology is owned by VRB power systems. Let's take a quick look at their site.

http://www.vrbpower.com/technology/index.html

This page mentions a Vanadium density of 2 moles per litre. There is some ambiguity as to what effect "for each vanadium species" has, so my result below may be out by a factor of two. No matter. If we now turn to

http://www.vrbpower.com/technology/faqs.html#faq3

we discover that the energy density (upper practical limit) is 25Wh/litre. Since Vanadium has an atomic weight of about 50, this means that for each 100 grams of Vanadium we get 25Wh of capacity. That's 0.25Wh/gram, or 250kWh / tonne.

The total known world reserves of Vanadium are about 38 million tonnes. If all of this were converted into VRBs, the total energy capacity would be 9,500 GWh. That's about as much as NSW alone uses in ONE hour at peak times.

VRBs have their uses, but unless huge new reserves of Vanadium are found - reserves that dwarf the known reserves - then VRBs are not going to be able to provide stability for intermittent power generators on a useful level.

Sylvia.

Oops - I've got a factor of 1000 out there. NSW would use about 9 GWh in an hour at peak time. All the same, 9,500 GWh is still small compared with the world's energy consumption, and batteries that are backing up wind power would conceivably have to operate for days at a time. Batteries that are backing up solar power would certainly have to operate for 16 hours.

Sylvia.

Dear Ralph
John Howard would like a nuclear reactor as a neighbour because Ziggy assured him it was as safe as houses. Just tell us Ralph a suitable location where you would like to place the first nuclear reactor whether fission or fusion ? The second one will look splendid next door to Parliament House in Canberra dont you think. The third Nuclear Power Station would be a fantastic tourist attraction next to the Opera House in Sydney. As it is so safe the fourth Nuclear Reactor in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef the marine life would blossom as well as the marine life in the Irish Sea. I am stuck and would like a suggestion for the fifth Nuclear Reactor. Australia is a prime site for Nuclear Waste so many places where John Howard can bury it and then forget about it after all he may not be alive in forty years time we can then leave it up to our grand children to sort that out that would be their problem not ours. What Suburb do you live close to Troublemaker surely your local resident association will support you against these Greenies. Greenpeace certainly are a nusciance annoying the Japanese Whaling Companies and Pangea.

Bronco Lane,

You are a MASTER of sarcasm. It's unfortunate that you're so wrong about nuclear power. Check out France on my website. They've built most of their 80+ nuclear power plants near parks where children play and near office buildings...not to mention their plants near open water where skiers, sailors, wind-surfers and swimmers enjoy their sports in total safety....unless they can't swim. Probably the safest place on earth to build your home would be right next to a nuclear power plant. I've visited many of them, and I still don't "glow in the dark."

Your sarcasm is both ridiculous and wasted. It's obvious that you're a reasonably intelligent person. Please use that intelligence in a positive manner. Negativity never accomplishes anything.

With respect to the "Greenies" as you call them. I am a member of both GreenPeace and The Sierra Club. But like Patrick Moore, the co-founder of GreenPeace, I believe that their good deeds, and there's a lot of them, are COMPLETELY outweighed by their dangerous opposition to nuclear power. They are a threat to my children (8) my grandchildren (16) and to my great-grandchildren (2) and that means that they are a threat to ALL children and all future generations.

Trouble, are you saying this is all lies? Any proof?

>http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html

achenne1 (a new name)

Of course I have proof. Most of it you'll find on my website: www.nucleargreen.org. Anything that's not specifically covered, let me know and I'll respond.

Ralph Andrews

Actually, Ralph hardly any of it is covered on your website. It's an ad for your book, as I suspect this thread may be also.

The way I see it is that most of your posts seem long on rhetoric, short on details and answers.....BUY THE BOOK! LOL

Thanks for the offer of getting a copy Ralph, but I'll wait until its in a library close by.

There's more to nuclear power than reactors and there are real concerns about waste management, mining and refining.

And as for Sylvia, I never mentioned any specific technology for power storage. I have no idea why you then went off on a tangent about Vanadium. I guess that's what happens when you "assume"

Bugsy,

As usual your assumption is wrong. I'm not trying to sell my book. It's taking care of itself, and doesn't need my help. You obviously did not search through my entire website. It's really quite accurate depending almost entirely on logic and common sense and not on scientific "mumbo jumbo." 441 nuclear power plants without a single accident or fatality speaks volumes to the safety of nuclear power....especially when you compare that record to the more than 6,000 deaths related to coal and natural gas power during the last decade alone.

Sorry we can't meet face to face. I would be interesting.

Good luck,

Ralph

Bugsy,

Well if you weren't referring to VRBs when you talked about the storage technology that we already have on a small scale, then what were you talking about? Perhaps I was crediting you with more knowledge than is yours.

Technology that we have on a small scale is of no interest in the discussion about large scale use of intermittent power unless that technology is capable of being scaled. So which technologies do you have in mind?

Sylvia.

Again, a rehash of odd statistics. I have looked site Ralph. If it's not an ad, what is it? A few links to some videos (including FOX News, lol) and a bit of a blog that doesn't actually answer much. Tell me, what distinguishes your book from "Nuclear Energy Now" by Alan Herbst and George Hopley?

Sylvia, many other people think that nuclear energy can be teamed up with fuel cells (ok, not exactly working yet, but you get the idea) and a hydrogen economy. Why does this not apply to "intermittent" energy sources? We have a lot of land in this country and much of it gets a good deal of nuclear energy directly from the sun for a good portion of the year, why can we not use it?

But there are many other technologies proposed for thermal exchange with no emissions, why can we not bother with them? New Zealand has had geothermal power for quite a while.

All technologies have their pros and cons. It's how we work them out that makes the difference. Nuclear energy has had strict safety protocols imposed on it precisely because it is a high-risk technology. Thats also why you are more likely to die in a car than a plane. But planes don't leave radioactive contaminants when they crash, you can use an airport after one takes dive. These safety protocols will fail sometime, just like with any other technology and the proliferation of plants, mines and waste dumps will only increase the risk of failure. Thats a reality, not a glass half-empty attitude. When it does fail, will we be able to live near it? How many failures will we be able to live with?

As for: "Sorry we can't meet face to face. I would be interesting."

I doubt that also.

Did I hear that Dr Pram Chopra had to leave the country because he couldn't get industry funds for his innovative geothermal hot rock technology?

This was a sad read
>http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s238846.htm<

I suspect that if nuclear plants are built in Aus they will certainly not be built by Aus companies. Under Howard we exist as a land raped for foreign corporations. I believe it takes tremendous energy just to build a nuclear reactor. Is this so?

Are you on a pundit payola for the nuclear industry, Trouble?

Achenne1

The most expensive place to build a nuclear power plant today is the U.S. That's because the "greens" have done everything possible to block, start, or even to agree to build any nuclear plant. We are trying now, to rid the process of all of the duplicative and unnecessary restrictions that are currently placed on nuclear plants here.

You can build the identical plant in France for about one third (maybe less) of the cost in the U.S. or, probably Australia. That has to stop.

It takes no more power (possibly less) to build a coal or natural gas power plant than a nuclear plant wherever it's built.

And NO, I'm not a paid "pundit" for the nuclear industry, nor would I consider becoming one. Nuclear Green, Inc. is taking on the fight as a public service...and, ultimately, we will win ! ! We have to win ! !

Ralph

Bugsy,

Fuel cells are not particularly efficient. This is not so important where they are competing with internal combustion engines that burn an expensive fuel, but is a significant problem if they are being used to balance the generation from an intermittent power source.

If significant part of the energy generated by a wind-farm is wasted in the power levelling system, then that requires a correspondingly larger wind farm for a given average power output.

Energy from wind farms is already expensive compared with coal or gas generation, without the extra impost of requiring a larger capacity. In addition, the capital costs of the storage system further increase the cost of the energy.

At the end of the day, wind power can be levelled if money is no object, but the consumer is going to be reluctant to pay multiples of the current price merely to avoid nuclear. Once the Australian public understands that it can't have its cake and eat it, Australia will go nuclear.

As for geothermal, you can't just up and build a geothermal plant wherever you feel like. The geology has to be suitable. In parts of NZ it is. In Australia it is not (other than Hot Rock, which is a rather different concept).

Hot rock technology is being developed in Australia, but it is not going to be cheap, and it has its own scalability issues. While the hot rock resource is huge, it is not all equally usable. Needless to say, the pilot plants are being built at the most suitable place.

Mr Lutens does not seem convinced of their safety either. Of course we can always bury the world's nuclear waste on Aboriginal land in the NT. That could not possibly be why Halliburton built the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. That was just my pananoia, that made me think that.

>http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html<

I am having some difficulty remaining quiet over troublemaker's constant lies and deception:

On 2/7,on this thread, he states:

"441 nuclear power plants without a single accident or fatality - speaks volumes to the safety of nuclear power."

Shame on you Troublemaker!

Japan's nuclear industry has incurred accidents during '95, 97, 98,99, 02. In 2004, at the Mihama plant in Japan, 4 workers were killed and 7 injured.

Only on 6/6/07 on OLO "Dogma and Delusion over Renewables", did I advise posters (including Troublemaker) of the prosecution in the UK in October 2006, over Sellafield's "accidental" release of 160 kgs plutonium, 20 tonnes of uranium and 83,000 tonnes of "acids."

Other accidents/"events" continue to occur within the US nuclear industry.

Are these termed accidents in your weird calculations, Troublemaker, or just minor events?

Strontium 90 is being found in the teeth of people born in the 80's in the US, equal to those born in the 50's.

Bear in mind there are some 50 nuclear weapons lying on the bottom of the ocean due to the US and the Soviets' military war games. Radiation leaks are continuing from nuclear processes, storage, shipping and disposal, uranium mining, DU artillery, bombs and bombers, subs and ships and from nuclear bomb tests and facilities.

This environment has already created an ideal prognosis for a more radioactive planet!

And how's that Pinocchio nose of yours doin', Troublemaker?

Bugsy and Dickie
It is great to know we have good people like yourselves trying to help Troublemaker see the light. Troublemaker has to have a vested interest Uranium shares are becoming one of the most expensive commodities and as we in the western world are addicts to oil so we will be to Uranium because that is what the establishment are working on. We only have to open the West Australian Newspaper and Mr Murdoch's rags to tell us that is where the investments will be heading. We are glad Dickie you mentioned Strotium B 90 which we were aware of in the sixties. Children were dying of Leukemia normally at the age of 10. The places that they went for picnics were Hanningfield Reservoir close to Bradwell Power Station. Strotium B 90 acts in the same way as calcium. The emmissions from the Nuclear Power Station give fall out dropping down from the clouds similar to those that linger over Rockinham. The droplets settle on the turf absorbed into the sods cattle graize on the grass. Children drink the milk from the cattle. Which inevitably ends up in the bone marrow of the child as would calcium. Many Hollywood stars appealed to parents to save the milk teeth that are discarded by the children to be analysed for radiation. Authorities are blindly ignoring what is happening to its people. Australia must learn from what Germany are doing we fear that if the Howard Government is re-elected he will commit contracts that cannot be broken. Many Liberals do have reservations. We do not know one that will put their hand up to say put one in my electorate in case they have riots on the streets.

Dickie,

Your words would normally be very insulting. But your post simply proves that you're an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about, and no one can be insulted by an idiot. I can only feel pity.

Don't bother to reply. I'm off this thread. In fact, I'm sorry I started it in the first place. I just hope that you're not typical of the average Aussie because you're a disgrace.

Ralph

Too true Bronco Lane

Only in March 2006, a nuclear accident occurred in Fleurus, Belgium.

The worker wasn't even aware that he'd received a huge dose of radiation until sometime later when his hair fell out and he became critically ill. He was hospitalised in a French hospital for a month. Not a good prognosis for a long life!

Brazil has only 2 reactors and has already had 20 accidents and 5 fatalities (well to date anyway!)

The US, up to 2005, has had 289 accidents and 30 fatalities.

And of course, the nuclear institutes fail to acknowledge that there is a lag time for symptons to appear in humans and animals (unwittingly exposed to radiation from the industry) where these symptons may only become apparent after many years.

Professor Monson of the Harvard School of Public Health warned of the elevated risk of cancers from X-rays and advised that there is no threshold of exposure which levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial. That advice was announced in 2005, and our governments continue to remain silent!

The often lengthy lag times for radiation illnesses to appear, enables the pro-nukers to deny any liability whilst they continue to commit their crimes against humanity and planet earth!

Sylvia, you are right that you can't just up and build a geothermal (I include the "hot rock" tech in this category) plant wherever and that the geology has to be suitable. The same goes for any power plant, the environment has to be suitable. You can't build a nuclear plant near a fault line, all thermal exchanger/turbine plants (coal, geothermal, nuclear etc) require a water source, so in Australia's case they should be near the coast. And so on...

As I said before, there are many technologies that can reduce our emissions profile, they are not considered high-risk and they can be started today. Complete replacement of coal seems to be your ultimate goal, but why can we not reduce now and replace later? Why do we have to have centralised power generation? Peak power and base load gap can be taken care of by gas turbines, which can be scaled to any output desired. While gas is more expensive for constant peak load, it's quite reasonable for intermittent supply.

And while our power storage capacity is currently inefficient, the nuclear argument relies on it always being so.

I'm sorry to see you spit the dummy Ralph, so long and I hope you will eventually find the answers, because you didn't write any here.

Bugsy,

There are plenty of places where you could build a nuclear plant in Australia, but few where a hot-rock plant would be economic.

If you use a gas turbine generator to stabilise the output from a wind farm, then you have to carry the cost of that generator as part of the cost of your wind farm, which pushes up the cost of the electricity from the wind-farm.

Sylvia.

Sorry, Sylvia I just don't see your point. You seem to assume that complete replacement of coal technology is essential and that no technology can replace it except nuclear. Except for the fact that getting a nuclear facility up and running requires more than what you believe it to require. Renewable technologies are currently more expensive in the short-term than current conventional methods, thats true. But as I said before, they can start today to reduce our peak loads and can be phased in gradually, and can be replaced easily when they become obsolete. Nuclear facilities are a massive whack of capital, so you'd better be damn sure that it's going to be economical for the long term, and that includes waste management.

I appreciate posters' awareness of technologies which could reduce our emissions considerably.

What concerns me most is the federal and state government's reliance on the big polluters to voluntarily install pollution prevention control.

Governments' reluctance to enforce regulations on all large industrial polluters, to mitigate hazardous emissions is the biggest single problem we have in addressing the degradation of our environment.

A simplified example follows: (Source - www.npi.gov.au)

1. WMC Resources Ltd - Kalgoorlie Nickel Smelter

2005-2006: SO2 emissions = 30,000,000 kgs

Pollution prevention control installed:

a) Electro precipitator
b) Fabric filter
c) Scrubber
d) Cyclone
e) Selective Catalytic Reduction

2. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Gidgi Roaster

2005-2006: SO2 emissions = 180,000,000 kgs

Pollution Prevention Control installed:

NIL

Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines is owned by Barrack/Newmont

One could hardly imagine they are unable to meet the costs of installing a scrubber to mitigate their pollution.

I believe many companies are acting irresponsibly to obtain maximum profits.

This is an issue which the federal and state governments remain silent on and refuse to address - an issue which is drastically elevating the release of hazardous eco-destructive chemicals.

If governments made pollution prevention control mandatory, massive reductions in atmospheric pollution would follow.

This would give Australia a temporary reprieve and more time to research renewable energies.

Why should responsible resource companies meet the costs of pollution mitigation whilst others refuse to?

Oh.....silly me. I forgot! "It's the economy stoopid!"

Bugsy, unlevelled wind power is unsuitable for providing power during peak times because you cannot rely on its being available. In fact, it's really unsuitable for providing power at any time for exactly the same reason.

Solar is even less useful, except during heat waves, because the peak loads occur at times when solar radiation is either low, or completely absent.

Both solar and wind have high capital costs per watt (in the case of solar, very high). These costs significantly exceed those of nuclear power plants, even if proper provision is made for decommissioning and waste storage. People talk about the high capital costs of a typical nuclear plant, but they overlook (sometimes wilfully, IMHO) the fact that such a plant also generates a lot of electricity.

The cost of solar power might come down with a breakthrough in technology, but we can't rely on that. It will not come down through economies of scale, because we've already had those.

Wind power generation just involves a lot of machinery, and in my view is likely to remain expensive for ever.

Even Hot Rocks, on the proponents' own cost estimates are more expensive per watt than nuclear. The same applies to another concept known as the Solar Tower.

The other renewables are small scale systems with no evidence that they can be scaled up.

So it doesn't matter how much people like the idea of 'green' power (which in this context means non nuclear green power), those tasked with engineering a green power system will tell you that they simply cannot build such a system with the technologies that currently exist, or are in reasonable prospect, unless people are willing to pay multiples of the current electricity price. Nor can they even make major inroads on the existing power usage using 'green' power.

Those who demand green power are crying for the moon.

Sylvia.

Hindsight is always 20-20. No point kicking yourself when your crystal ball fails you.

Premier Carpenter (WA) has just issued a small grant to an inventor to commercialise a modular roof-top wind turbine to take advantage of the daily "Fremantle Doctor" sea breeze, though it can also utilise variable urban winds.

We are advised there are no visible blades, it's small, quiet and relatively cheap.

The modular need only connect 5 additional units to supply all household energy requirements.

So it's a "wait and see" for the outcome to this latest WA innovation.

Dear Bugsy and Dickie
What become of Ralph Troublemaker ?
He realised that he what he was asserting is far too dangerous and that he had concern for his family.
But what did he do he accused Dickie as being insulting where was Dickie insulting.
Ralph Troublemaker started the debate then when the umpire ruled him out he took his ball, bat and stumps home with him so that nobody else could play. It was like tipping the Monopoly board upside down when the other play wouldn't sell you Mayfair. It has all gone quiet now on the Western Front. This is why all anti nuclear activists must continue to place the facts in front of the electorate. The Nuclear Industry have all the money at their disposal to pay their Politicians handsome pay packets to promote Nuclear. It is frightening what power they have and the control they have over the media and Politicians. The biggest farce was the task force Chaired by Ziggy their conclusions were inevitable. We will be a lot safer and a lot richer if we as a people do exactly the opposite of what that Committee recommended. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament struggle has to continue until we convince the people of Australia that Nuclear Power is much more of a danger to mankind than Global Warming those that created Global Warming now want to destroy this planet entirely with Nuclear Bombs.

How nice! I didn't realize that I would be missed. Yes, you scared me off. I'm still shaking :-)

Good luck ! !

Ralph@nucleargreen.org

It is heartening to see Kevin Rudd and Al Gore together with Al Gore giving praise to our Labor Party policies on Global Warming and the policies to cut Industrial emissions. Al Gore through his educational film the Inconvenient Truth has at last convinced the world that the Scientists are right and even the pessimists have been shamed into accepting and falling in line only verbally.