nuclear energy!!! whats it worth to us?

[wraithe]

I hope i havent touched on a subject that gets me into trouble with too many here...
It has become a passionate subject for me over the years and i feel i may be doing the right thing by bringing it up now..I am not an advocate of some thing so devastating to our world and would welcome any one wanting to know why i dont support it.. I have looked into this subject for the past 20 years and have yet seen anything that is environmentally friendly.. The heat waste from a nuclear power station is so damaging to the environment that if it was really looked at the they would start shutting them down.. In the US these monstrocities have caused total loss of some of the best fishing grounds in the US and cheasepeake bay alone is nearly destroyed as a fishing ground when at one time it could have fed the US easily.. The other issue is how long will uranium last, the ore is only available in australia and canada, other sites in the world dont have a higher enough grade of ore suitable for use and the ore that is available in not in enough quantities to support the present power stations let alone the required ones that world would need to go nuclear.. I f the funding was put into solar and wind, then we would have solar panels on every roof in australia, with the government being able to pay a majority of the cost easily..
another thing that makes me laugh is when i get told that solar air conditioning is not feasible, (what happens if it rains for a week), well really! who wants air con when its raining...
anyway, anybody feels they want to discuss this please do, and i promise i will try to put up a good argument, and a polite one...i think to debate with politeness will go further than to jump on a high horse and try to ram in peoples throats..:D

[Starkler]

Nuclear power appears to make a lot of sense considering our large uranium reserves.
Australia is a big contributor of greenhouse gasses due to our reliance on brown coal. We also have more space than virtually anyone for the safe disposal of nuclear wastes.

If nuclear power makes sense anywhere on this planet, there wouldnt be many places more suited to it than Australia, except for the fact we have huge cheap reserves of dirty burning brown coal.

Did you know that solar photovoltiac cells have a break even point of 20 years to get back the energy used to manufacture them ?

[avandonk]

I as some sort physicist will totally and utterly agree with you. At best Nuclear energy will only contribute at best about 6% of our energy needs.
A nuclear reactor only returns about twenty times the amount of fossil fuel energy needed to build it. Let alone the cost of the fuel! They have a life of twenty years maybe.

Then you and all your decendants have the problem of the waste for at least one or two hundred thousand years!

Bert

[wraithe]

Did you know that the present reserves of uranium will at best last another 30 yrs..Did you also know that the US have not built a new nuclear power station since 1978 and that they are heavily subsidised to operate..Did you also know that to produce the fuel rods for the core, it takes more electricity, produced by a coal fired power station than the amount of electricity produced by that nuclear power station...Did you also know that nuclear power stations are 30% efficent compared to 60% for coal...Did you also know that nuclear power stations release more heat to the atmosphere, per mega watt than coal..
And one last quote, solar cost recovery compared to nuclear....
solar does recover cost, nuclear does not...i prefer to recover costs...
and plz look past the propaganda, the US during the 50's started it to provide fuel for there nuclear weapons program and now they are believing there own bull...

[wraithe]

oh one other thing...
it will take 20 yrs to get a nuclear power station online...
the construction time is huge and the cost is massive and then our grand children will be whinging about those silly old idiots that left all the environmental damage for them to clean up...hang on a minute, dont we whinge about that, for all the industrial sites that left chemicals everywhere...oh yeh ddt or dieldren is not harmful..sheep dip never hurt a single farmer..
sorry just food for thought...
and thank you starkler...plz look into what i have written and dont take it personally...it is all accessable on the net as i have found a site today and put a link in my sig...
if you wish to know where i get my knowledge from then plz either post or pm...ok
good reply too...
keep them coming plz...

[vespine]

I don't disagree, but I like playing the devils advocate, and you are asking for it, so:

If nuclear power is so unsestainable and so costly to 'set up' and operate, why do they bother? Do you think it's simply a indutrial money sink? Dollars lining enough of the right pockets?

[fringe_dweller]

Wraithe, firstly hi and welcome :).
You wouldnt be biased would you?, just going by that link in your sig.
I appreciate your passion and reasons for opposing nuke energy.
But I do question some of your stats - I have read 5- 10 years to get a station up and running, never heard of 20 years before.
Why are you so focused on the U.S as an example why not places like Sweden, France, Japan who love seemingly wholeheartadly love nuke energy - some balance please. And yes i would like some links to back up some of these claims please.
I keep hearing how unfeasible it all is, well if its so economically unfeasable how come India and China are like bulls at the gate for the industry?
Also if nuke energy plants only have a life of 20 years how come all those old ones are hitting 50 years? whats the life of gas fired turbines in conventional power stations - they dont last forever either.
Bert: what do you mean by "At best Nuclear energy will only contribute at best about 6% of our energy needs" what one solitary power station are you talking about here? - I would think we need many nuke power stations thats for sure.
I wouldnt be so sure that they won't find an elegant and cheap and simple way to neutralise nuke waste in the next 200 000 years - I would put 20 to 50 years on it maybe being done. I have an inkling there is a great deal of interest in finding a way to do this even now research is happening - I read of one idea being worked on was using microbes and bacteria that can break down the waste into something harmless - thats just one idea out there.
Anyway if qld can fill there coffers and prosper greatly with coal money- so can we here with yellow cake - I dont see the diff - as for the amount of uranium out there, who knows were they'll find more large deposits thats not a foregone conclusion that it finite here or anywhere.

[wraithe]

Hey now this is gettin a nice even debate going...
i'll try to answer each and every question...
one of the limitations to nuclear waste is the fact that once it has been used it starts to decay into transuranics.. now they where building breeder reactors during the 70's, but the problem with that is that once the fuel has been used in a breeder reactor it has increased the number of transuranics and excellerated the decay into those type of isotopes...transuranics are also what the waste will continue to decay into, and they are extremely dangerous to us..once the fuel is stored it will decay for the next 24,000 yrs at which point it is 1,000 times more dangerous than the day it came out of the core... plutonium 238 is a transuranic and possibly the least harmful, it is also the isotope used in nuclear weapons..exposure to 0.01 grams of plutonium generally results in death within 3-6 months.. now when they enrich uranium, they use a cascade process and this uses huge amounts of electricity and is not economical..another thing is reprocessing, which has deadly waste and the returned amount is quite miniscule..they are presently trying to improve this process but after 30 yrs have yet to get an efficent process working...The emmissions from these plants of greatest concern are kryptonium-85, iodine-129, plutonium-239, tritium, and carbon-14
why the US, well they where the leaders in utilising the nuclear power generation process and the only advocates for over 20 years...they also had government based atomic energy comission and several other agencies, (the list is extensive and they changed names several times to suit the political environment).. Jimmy Carter said in september 1976 "We should use atomic energy only as a last resort"..its a bit funny as the US was the world leader and had already the major problem of nuclear waste...they also have a huge amount of decommisioned nuclear reactors..
The world has adopted nuclear power as no other method that is shown to be economical or environmental..One thing people dont see is the fact that nuclear power stations have destroyed so much of the ecology already..
Who is benfitting(shrugs shoulders), i dont have an answer for that, but then it dont make sense to increase the wages of the rich and reduce the wages of the poor...
I've missed a few answers here for sure...
My link on my sig...umm actually found it today..ooops no yesterday...
Seen the news and just about spun out as to why the pm would want a nuclear power station in a country that has better ways to produce electrity and there not interested in looking to anything but nuclear...
And no i am not a greeny or anything like that...we do need a nuclear reactor for medicine and research but thats all...to generate electricity..nahhh..

Now i expect some one will say how do you know about physics...well thats my interest...nuclear and astro.... and no i'm not an optical stargazer, have done and will do again soon but its like going to the city, i get lost easy...lol..:D

[wraithe]

ps: thank you for the welcome fringe_dweller..love your nickname...its pretty cool...but then i noticed most of you guys have some nice nicks...

[Mr Bob]

Thats an outdated arguement. Payback on PV is down to 3-5 years for quality cells.

[acropolite]

IMHO nuclear for power or weapons is an accident waiting to happen, either in the present time or thousands of years in to the future when the waste is still lethal, more so in this age of terrorism. The costs of nuclear have been proven to be far higher than renewables and the risks are unacceptable. It's about time our government acted, by supporting development of renewables and encouraging efficient use of our existing energy resources. I recently posted about a local road reconstruction where 1 light that was more than sufficient to light up an intersection has been replaced by 10. That sort of waste should not happen in this day and age. There also needs to be a shift in the thinking of governments and environmentalists. It's absolutely absurd that a wind farm proposal is scuttled because a bird might fly into the blades, yet forestry practices (e.g.burnoffs, spraying) have exemption from all appropriate environmental laws (at least in our state).

[[1ponders]]

Not being fully up on the physics of this stuff, but what about the other nuclear? Assuming that the Uranium powerstation ideas get knocked on the head ( :rofl: who are we kidding. We have little or no say in this. They WILL get built!! ) what are the options for Fusion. How far off is this option?

[fremanwarrior]

Catalyst had a story on Fusion a couple of weeks ago.. Rather interesting it was.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1625306.htm

[mickoking]

Wraithe, 100% agree :thumbsup: Another problem with using nukes to help reduce green house gasses is a political one. If we have nuclear power up and running there will be no incentive to look at renewable energy.

We do need a debate in this country on this subject but sadly I think the debate will be hijacked by economic rationalist pollies, the uranium lobby and anyone else with a vested interest.

[fringe_dweller]

Wraithe, at least you care about something, unlike most aussies, who appear to me as eternal hedonists by night and thatcherites/nazi's by day. I admire it when people give a damn about their world and go to great lengths to educate themselves on subjects other than ones with a selfish dollar motive at the end.
You will not get any arguement from me that nuke waste isnt extremely dangerous and toxic. But its funny I dont see any debate about the dangers of benzine from unleaded fuel pumped out of our cars - oh no we wouldnt dare critisize our beloved cars/4WD! or the cocktail of even deadlier poisons spewed out by diesel engines - heaven forbid!
Again I see nuke power stations are labelled too expensive versus conventional.
I will tell you a little story - we had in this state an incredibly lucrative state run/owned electricity power generator - most lucrative business in SA in fact.
And one of the reasons we were told we had to sell/privatise it (by the then Olsen lib/tory gov - ironically originally created and commisioned by the lionised and visionary? Playford lib gov in the 50's) was because the conventional power station (torrens island) was nearly 50 years old and was in dire need of replacing, and we couldnt afford to replace it as it would send the state bankrupt even, and it was HUGE liability! and the only solution was to sell it to a multinational, as they are the only entities in the world who can afford to build/rebuild conventional power stations, governments/countries cant afford to do it anymore apparently?



hey any good thatcherite knows it will all trickle down to the underclasses LOL 'dont you worry about that' - and there full of stupid people anyway? (not my words - I have actually heard that from peoples mouths) not part of the meritocracy, not worth a damn? ;)

and thnx for compliment on nick wraithe - although my post count doesnt reflect that nick to well :P

[mickoking]

In the coming debate we will hear a lot about how safe nuclear power is. Fine. Instead of dumping the waste in Western Australia (not to mention the rest of the worlds waste as well). Dump it all in the federal electorate of Bennelong. Because you will hear a lot from the member of Bennelong how safe nuclear power is so there will certainly be no objection from him or his constistuants for placing nuclear waste there :P

[fringe_dweller]

also I see predictions that the southern states are predicted to see an overall 20% reduction in rainfall this century due to 'global warming' (ironically possibly caused? by these wonderfully cheap conventional power generators - again I will say it, what price do you out on a 20% reduction in rainfall and global warming?)
As a result of this we are going to need more water from somewhere to replace it at the least.
The most obvious way to do that is nuke powered desalination plants, and lots of them - this should also combat the rising sea levels due to global warming a bit? ;)
It might not make sense to northern states and other states, it sure makes a hell of a lot of sense to us here in SA.
Re windfarms - I keep seeing the figure a possible one bird a year being killed in the blades, I have read differing much higher figures than that in SA newspaper, more like 10 a week in some cases, and with some endangered species that can be devestating - also do you realise how much compensation has to be paid to people who's valueable properties are devalued when eyesore windfarms are plonked in their million dollar views?
I have also mentioned here before the downsides of windfarms - in hot weather (over 35 d C - LOL) they have to be shut down or risk the turbine burning out - and the expensive turbines have to be replaced on a regular basis as they wear out of course - i think they last around 10 years max.

[wraithe]

Finally back online to reply to these..argh, shock horror, i'm using windows too...(cringes)...
Any way i am surprised at you guys..I've been waiting for someone to point out the nuclear reactors that i missed...
ok to start with there are 1200, reactors worldwide on land...Any body gettin the jist of what i missed yet...
ok, for those that don't, here goes...
War ships, submarines, aircraft carriers, etc etc...
now what i dont know is how the hell do they not heat the sea when they dont carry land based cooling ponds, oh yeh there exempt...The epa in the US have been slowly opening up there problems with nuclear power generation..KYOTO protocol calls for a reduction in green house gas pollution, if nuclear power generation is so good why, why is the US not willing to join it unconditionally...They are not alone but they do yell the loudest...lets get golliath to toe the line in regards to world ecology and the rest will slowly follow..
Nuclear powered ships and submarines leave huge heat trails when passing thru the ocean..It is detectable and that is the only way to detect some of these submarines...it is a hard process to detect them but they leave a heat trail, if that is not damaging to the ecology then i dont know what is...oh yeh heat doesnt cause global warming, only fossil fuel waste...
come on!, any heat production causes some degree of global warming, including shiney house roof's...whats wrong with the old methods of construction...oh yeh, not many like mudbricks and they dont come in all the fancy colours...
Hey guys i understand that here the arguments are a bit of a waste as you all have an interest in the planet and can see the effects of what an increase in temperaturs will do, or a decrease...but if i bring some of this up here then you guys will pass it on and this info will spread...its like domino's, as long as they align they will transfer there energy....
anyway one other thing...photovoltaic cells have increased in output in the last 20 years..dont know the exact figure but its hugely efficent compared to the 80's..and the governments dont put any large amounts of research money towards them...wind has some benefit, but like victoria(portsea i think) they installed there windmills off the coast and if you incorporate a swell generator with the wind generator then you get a double bonus and the platforn that the tower sits on is of more use than just a foundation..
Yes we have some pristene(somebody get a dictionary) coastline but we will mine it or destroy it some how so lets look at utilising the spots that are half wrecked and reduce human impact on them...by installing these turbines people wont want to live there, we hope...
your roof on your house should be solar panels, and the design and construction should be for saving on heating and cooling...now mudbrick and rammed earth are cheaper than brick but people want this fancy brick...lets get back to earth a bit and save on bills too..
another thing, about wildlife..umm i see out side that the state forestry group(known as C.A.L.M) are burning off again...Now how much did they burn this year, 100,000+ acres.. sounds like a lot of country..try the fact the forest here is very thick and they burn off all summer...even been known to light fires when no one else is allowed to light the bbq..middle of summer you get burnoffs down here, and i can tell you, it stinks, the sky is orangey red and the smoke is every where...Now i wonder how many animals where cremated by these fires, when you drive down the road past an area they are burning off, you see everything from snakes to bandicoots and kangaroos having to find a new home...If some one burnt my home i would be peeved to say the least..So using wind farms is no where near as damaging as fire...Another thing that destroys the wildlifes homes is urban sprawl, but then everybody wants a new fancy home...another that kills birds is high rise buildings, but hey i dont think they will stop building them...
enough for now...back later...

[wraithe]

20 + year life...

[mickoking]

Wraithe, great to see some of that Aussie passion, Fantastic :thumbsup:

[fringe_dweller]

I have read different quotes to 20 years, 10-15 I'm sure in local newspaper - 20 years might be the go in scandanavia or tassie - but not in tough hot conditions here.
My point is that ALL energy generating systems have a finite lifespan - not just nuke plants - as that seems to be that favourite anti-nuke angle - its economics. I understand renewable systems arent economical either, but the only one that ppl have a problem with being uneconomical and finite is NE? weird?
Do conventional power plants create heat as well (as well as millions of tonnes and tonnes of lung choking pollutants- prolly just as much as nukes?)
I lived in south west scotland not far Sellafield nuke station in northern england for a fair while - I didnt notice much heat coming from that one :cold: I even visited it once - altho i did work with ppl the were volunteer observers on their w/e's keepin an eye on leaks into the solway firth with their geiger counters, and were very concerned citizens about it all, but that cant be compared to a new modern 21st century nuke plant.
oh well good old iceland are just laughing there heads off by now during this energy crisis with all their unlimited free geothermal power :)
One thing that bothers me about the anti-nuke/pro renewable ppl is all the emotional/hysterical attitude they project - makes me uneasy and think they arent being totally logical and calm about it - emotion and propoganda should have no part in the debate IMO.

[mickoking]

The problem is that the pro nuclear people have the money and the ears of the government and half of the opposition. What do the anti nukes do ? As I mentioned earlier the debate will be (and already is to some extent) hijacked by those groups that stand to make a tidy profit on uranium regardless of the concequences. There will be emotion, Its our future and that of our kid's involved.

[robagar]

Nukes are only uneconomical because coal power is cheap. And coal power is only cheap because its pollution can be dumped straight into the atmosphere and ignored.

Give me contained nuclear waste over dispersed atmospheric pollution any day. And as much as I personally like windmills, no-one seriously claims that renewables can supply all the energy the world needs. Not without cutting back energy use.

But no government is ever going to sacrifice economic competitiveness for energy efficiency.

Btw, there is way more than 20 years worth of uranium on this planet. 20 years is just the current known reserve that can be extracted at a price low enough to make a profit at today's prices. As the price goes up, more of the reserve becomes economic to extract, which ups the time scale to hundreds of years (maybe enough time to get fusion working even!). And uranium can be reprocessed and reused many times over.

[gaa_ian]

OK I will wade into this debate
Good to see such passionate debate on this issue !
I had the opinion 25yrs ago that the best thing to do with uranium is to "Leave it in the ground" I have seen nothing since then to change my opinion.
Most of Europe was contaminated with fallout from Chernobl & that is just 1 station that melted down !
The Aboriginals of Arnhem land had the right Idea about the Uranium rich rock of Ranger, they called it the "Sickness Country" and avoided it !
Pity we didn't listen & learn the lesson that 40,000 yrs of living on this land has taught them.
Whatever the efficentcies are or are not, the bottom line is "Nuclear waste is not safe and it is almost forever"
Why else do you think there is so much interest in disposing of the small amount of nuclear waste that is produced by Lucas Heights, here in the NT where there are not many federal liberal votes ?
If Australia is to go down the road of wanting to build a Nuclear Power station, i will have to dust of my 1980's Greeni credentials and start protesting, campaining & agitating.
If nuclear "Fusion" is as good as it is promised to be, great thing, go for it.
Until that is proven, lets go Biodiesel, Gas, solar, wave power ...etc ....

PS: In fact, i have already taken the 1st step & sent this post into the local paper as a letter to the editor !

[norm]

Interesting debate to say the least, especially with the increasing costs of crude oil.

The way I see it is lets go nuclear all the way. We're only here for a short period of time, so worrying about whats going to happen in 1000yrs let alone 25000 years is pointless. Sure there are dangers, very extreme dangers and Chernobyl is as bad it could ever get. That said, if the human pysche was to worry about every invention made we would still be living in the Stone age and we wouldn't get past a wooden club, let alone fire.

I'm just a layman, not a physicist, nor an engineer, but surely with over 400 Land based Nuclear Power Stations, one would have to imagine they've got it fairly under control and stable to warrant their existence and future development. I just can't see how any nation would seriously contemplate using this type of energy source without ensuring as much possible safety is inbuilt to protects its very own people/country.

I'd personally be more worried about getting cancer, cause I can assure you its more likely to happen than a catastrophe of a nuclear meltdown destroying Earth, a drum of spent uranium falling off the back of a truck or a lid popping off 2km below earth and uranium leeching back up to the surface.

[mickoking]

I have noted that Johnny H wants to export our uranium to China, Hmmmmm. I wonder what their saftey standards are like? And how are they going to dispose of the waste? Probably dump it in Tibet or Inner Mongolia.

[wraithe]

Geothermal, pretty good solution really...NZ are doing well with it and there not alone...The pacific ring is an ideal spot for geothermal..but there are lots more world wide...I'm not just anti-nuclear..i would like to see all fossil fuel production stopped also..and as for gettin a solar car...well why not a horse for short journeys and a train for longer ones..
pity i'm not allowed to just keep my horse in my back yard, would save on mowing and i wouldnt have to drive so far to go for a ride...
yes in some ways i would like to turn the clock back but in others we need to go forward, but not blindly..just because something has been around for years doesnt make it safe...

[wraithe]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001457.html

[wraithe]

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.html)

this one has the best list of nuclear accidents...
oh and one more thing, nuclear power plants have a major shutdown problem? How do you pump cooling into something that is getting higher in pressure as it gets hotter, without releasing that pressure...
Sorry its an age old questions that is yet to be answered and has proven that we dont have the answer...

I cant cut and paste my links and the one above isnt working...
i will try to get it for you some how...it has some of the international accidents on it...
www.atomicarchive.com this will take you to the site, do a search for "accidents", the first on the list is the one above...

[gaa_ian]

Thanks Wraite !
Your post has prompted me to speak out publicly about this Important issue !
I work in heavy industry & this gives me even more reason to oppose nuclear power. I know about the corners cut, the way accidents happen (are caused).
Play with fire and you may burn yourself, play with nukes & you may burn the whole country !

[robagar]

looks like a very short list to me, if you consider the 6000 coal miners that die every year in China alone.

[robagar]

The new pebble bed reactor design has some nice answers, like actually producing less energy as they get hotter...

(cut n' pasted from the wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor#Safety_features) )

"When a pebble-bed reactor gets hotter, the more rapid motion of the atoms in the fuel decreases the probability of neutron capture by 235U atoms by an effect known as Doppler broadening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_broadening). When the uranium is heated, its nuclei move more rapidly in random directions, and therefore see and generate a wider range of relative neutron speeds. 238U, which forms the bulk of the uranium in the reactor, is much more likely to absorb fast-moving neutrons.[3] (http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/crosssection.gif) This reduces the number of neutrons available to cause 235U fission, reducing the power output by the reactor. This natural negative feedback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback) places an inherent upper limit on the temperature of the fuel, without any operator intervention.


The reactor is cooled by an inert, fireproof gas, so it cannot have a steam explosion as a light-water reactor can.


The coolant has no phase transitions—it starts as a gas and remains a gas.


The moderator is solid carbon. It does not act as a coolant, move, or have phase transitions (i.e. between liquid and gas) as the light water in conventional reactors does.


A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail, and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It simply goes up to a designed "idle" temperature, and stays there. In that state, the reactor vessel radiates heat, but the vessel and fuel spheres remain intact and undamaged. The machinery can be repaired or the fuel can be removed.
These safety features are not just theoretical. This exact test was performed (and filmed) with the German AVR reactor. All the control rods were removed, and the coolant flow was halted. Afterward, the fuel balls were sampled and examined for damage. There was none."

[wraithe]

Yes it is..indian point is not on that list to start with, another is long island...
lost of accidents are hard to find on the net, there are quite a few missing from these lists and i think it may take me a while to find them all...

[wraithe]

A 15 MWe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWe#MWe.2C_MWt) demonstration reactor, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Versuchsreaktor (AVR - roughly translated to working group test reactor), was built at the Jülich Research Centre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BClich_Research_Centre) in Jülich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BClich), West Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany). The goal was to gain operational experience with a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. The unit's first criticality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality) was on August 26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_26), 1966 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966). The facility ran successfully for 21 years, and was decommissioned on December 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_1), 1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988), in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident).
The AVR was originally designed to breed 233Uranium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233) from 232Thorium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-232). Thorium is about three times as abundant in the Earth's crust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crust_%28geology%29) as uranium, and an effective thorium breeder reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor) is therefore considered valuable technology. However, the fuel design of the AVR contained the fuel so well that the transmuted fuels were uneconomic to extract—it was cheaper to simply use natural uranium isotopes.
The AVR used helium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium) coolant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolant). Helium has a low neutron cross-section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross-section). Since few neutrons are absorbed, the coolant remains less radioactive. In fact, it is practical to route the primary coolant directly to power generation turbines. Even though the power generation used primary coolant, it is reported that the AVR exposed its personnel to less than 1/5 as much radiation as a typical light water reactor.

quoted from the wikipedia you used...
expense has made it uneconomical to use...
breeder reactors are very expensive to use and was going to be the answer to the waste from LWR's but alas, ?
and 1/5th the radiation exposure, is still too much...is it not dangerous to go outside uncovered yet we allow people to be exposed to something even more dangerous...nature is dying, lets use renewables, like grow trees, cut down, regrow..use all the resources we have and get the greeny's looking at the right things not the things we can maintain..fishing is another, conservatively we should be able to maintain life but we are destroying it..if there is ET's that have been here, i'm sure they dont want to come back.. i'm sure that i wouldnt if i seen this place from out there...

[gaa_ian]

There was a very interesting Podcast on "Ockhams Razor" ABC radio national. It spoke of Australias role in the nuclear fuel cycle.
Norm - if you are more worried about getting cancer that Nuclear power, this is one podcast you should listen to !
Australia as a Nation would have to be Patently STUPID to accept the worlds Nuclear waste !
Can we be assured of political & climate stability for the next 1000 years (the most dangerous portion of the wastes 1/2 life).
If storing this stuff underground is so safe, lets build the storage facility in a sheep paddock, just outside Canberra !

[Mr Bob]

I dont want to get into a debate about what or how Australians should power thier country but what serious / viable alternative is there to nuclear? The greenies dont want coal fired or nuclear and damming rivers (do you have enough water over there?) disrupts the ecology, wind kills birds and is an eyesore (I quite like them, they're hypnotic) and solar would need a huge area to produce the equivalent energy thus once again disrupting the ecosystem. Wave power is still in its infancy and is prone to malfunction due to salt and heavy seas.

In saying all of that I happily live off the grid with my own RAPS.

[robagar]

Not all greenies have their heads in the sand:

Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy (http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm)

[Mr Bob]

They aint real greenies then;)

[robagar]

burn the heretics!

[ving]

interesting debate wraithe :)

most of your stats are older than me
all of the powerplants that have had problems were (it seems) built 40-50 years ago (technology has changed (I hope))
there sure is some political agenda behind all this!
you some fatcats gunna packet wadds of cash
nope, newkiller energy is not a long term solution, but niether are windfarms that will probably in the long run caue the extinction of a few bird species (well at least on a local scale)
untill waste is delt with properly we shouldnt build a powerplant
i enjoy making lists...
i am currently against making a power plant, but not against researching the making of power plants as they might (if we can eventually make them safe enough) provide a short term sollution

welcome aboard :)

[wraithe]

ahh, research..i really think the nuclear reactor should have stayed in the research phase till all aspects of the process had been proven and developed correctly...
I am not against the idea being a solution but its not the solution that people think it is.. at this stage it is as ecologically damaging as burning coal and then on top of that, the waste is here for 10,000+ years...its not for 1,000 years but tens of thousands...the decay of the waste does not get less dangerous but increase in its danger for 20,000 years...and i dont know about you guys but my childrens children will be here and there children will be, and logically we should consider the consequences of our actions now...you cant change the past and you cant just say "well it wasnt for me to worry about as tomorrow never comes"...thats not true and any body in this world should remember that...
A lot of researchers would love to have access to some of the research money that has been put into nuclear energy and some of them dont need much to prove there inventions...
Hitler during world war 2 decide that if a project was not viable in a short period of time then it would get no more support..well we know that he lost the war, but go read about the projects he left by the wayside...we could all be saluting his victory by now...is it way politics is going right now...install nuclear power because it is here now but forget the projects that may prove nuclear power as a waste...just give them the dole and tell them to go away we are not interested..
I am thinking of the future not just 20 or 50 years but way beyond my life expectancy...all this use of nuclear power is not real smart, considering we really have no idea of the long term concequences to our planet...
At the end of the day, the greenies have been a pain but where i live, the farmers are very green in there ways..ok they believe in cutting down trees and so do i..why, because you can grow another...steel leaves a big hole in the ground so why use it...we have enough waste on this planet and need to learn to recycle that..not produce more waste we cant do anything with...

[wraithe]

Fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) the dominant energy today, are being rapidly exhausted, and are the cause of wide scale pollution of our environment, while nuclear and renewable energies are much cleaner : they have absolutely no global effect, produce only very small amounts of waste that are easy to manage, don't affect the planet's climate, and these energy sources (renewable energies and clean nuclear energy), if well managed, are sustainable in the very long term

this is a quote from environmentalists for nuclear...
hmmm, now what is wrong with this quote...
very small amounts of waste..yes like 250 kgs per year per power reactor...
only need 5 kgs to build a nuclear bomb that would wipe any city that any one here lives in...
dont be surprised how powerful plutonium can be...

[wraithe]

well i'm going to leave this thread for a while...
and i have just the quote to add here...
it comes from the environmentalists for nuclear power...


As a dedicated environmentalist, I consider it paradoxical to see some environmental groups opposed to nuclear energy. Green opposition to nuclear power plants is in fact a major historical mistake. Their announced concerns are for health, safety, and the protection of nature. In these respects nuclear power is by far superior to the alternatives - burning fossil fuels (coal, petroleum and gas) which pollute the atmosphere, wind turbines or the use of solar photovoltaic cells for the production of electricity, and biomass (growing crops to be burned and burning crop residues) which alter the landscape and produce only minute amounts of energy.
It is a fundamental fact that population growth and increasing standard of living are precipitating an energy crisis which is not being met, and which cannot be met in the long term, say in the lifetime of our children and grandchildren, without recourse to nuclear fission.
Well-designed, well-constructed, well-operated and well-maintained nuclear energy is very clean, safe, durable and economical.
It produces little carbon dioxide, and no sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides; these are produced in vast quantities when fossil fuels are burned, and they are injected (dumped) into the atmosphere.
Unlike solar cells, wind turbines and growing biomass which cover large areas, a nuclear power station is very compact; it occupies typically the area of a football stadium and its surrounding parking lots.
While a little carbon dioxide is emitted in construction (but the same can be said of windmills and photovoltaic cells), none is emitted in operation; thus nuclear power makes a minimum contribution to the greenhouse effect.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e139/wraithe40/mihama-second-vapor-circuit.jpg
check the out flow of the nuclear process...
read the place the heated water is released from...


:D :D

[mickoking]

I don't think there is much public support for nuclear energy in Australia anyway.

[gaa_ian]

I hope you are right Micko, the important question is weather there is enough public opposition too it !

[mickoking]

Good point Ian. Aussies have always been a somewhat apathetic species. Since 9/11 and this whole terrorism thing I believe our apathy has just increased and generally the average Australian has lost interest in subjects like nuclear power and the environment.

We put too much trust in Pollies and beauracrats, not a healthy attitude in a 21'st century democracy.

Just my 2 bobs worth ;)

[fringe_dweller]

I see everyone is quite rightly worried about the future, and the future for their kids. well have you considered Oz becoming a second or third world country/'banana republic' will do for your kids future and the future of the enviroment?
We need additional power stations to the existing conventional ones, and we cant afford (on an enviromental scale) to have any more coal fired ones than we already have or exceed our already quota (I think from memory that conventional power stations are responsible for 25%/30% of all our green house emissions now in this country)

Soooo whats left? cover the entire country every square inch - coast to coast in great big pretty whirly gigs will solve all our ills? gag, pleeeease!
(i dont think they would like as good to anyone if they had to live with them in their face 24/7/52/365)
We need additional ones to move ahead and remedy loss of rainfall, and create and encourage industries to fatten the coffers so we continue this great aussie lifestyle.
Or maybe you wanna trade in that monster 4WD for a pushbike and start reading the Dharma everyday while eating your lentil and turnip soup?
France (as I heard it) has some of/the? cheapest power in the world, and its nearly all nuke generated.
This burying our heads in the sand and pretending that some mysterious saviour of new renewable free and plentiful energy is a bit like waiting for the second coming! i am bored of waiting the saviour energy.
Funny how all the anti-nuke ppl can easily believe that this saviour is coming, but not believe the same minds cant come up with a way of safely disposing/nuetralising nuke waste, even before the famous 200 000 years is up!! weird!.
We wouldnt even be here if it wasnt for nuclear energy /radioactivity - well knownly - the very ingrediants we are made of came from the nuclear furnaces of supernovas, some many beneficial mutations in evolution we enjoy possibly come from dna molecules encounters with deadly cosmic rays ect. (spiderman comes to mind here) what about the sun do you find that handy or what? creating that nice big cosy bubble of solar radiation we live in that protects us from all sorts of other nasties!

[fringe_dweller]

In a recent survey aussies were asked what they thought about Apathy.
90% responded 'they dont care' :) its what makes this country great!

[ACE]

If the equivalent amt of money was spent on the various governments on defense was spent into furthering research in maximizing Solar energy, we by now may have a viable source of power.

Why haven't we developed the ultimate solar cell by now? Why isn't it in each household roof by now.

If more money was spent in renewable energies as solar/wind/geo thermal/bio then maybe we wouldn't be in this predicament we're in now. Its not like this is news, its been in our faces for at least 20yrs.

Has solar technology currently reached its maximum theorectical limits known to man at this moment in time. I mean, if they could develop new materials in the 60's for the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo projects surely you'd think the same effort could be done for renewable energies to make it work efficiently.

[robagar]

Yes, fitting solar panels to existing buildings should be subsidized by the government, and required by law on new builds. It's madness that this famously sunny country doesn't take advantage of what it's got (apart from the huge reserves of coal of course :mad2:)

[wraithe]

What is wrong with being conservative...
I mean really do we need to have a thousand lights on all the time...
we have low power movement sensors at our disposal, why not use them...
flood lights can be replaced by flouro ones...
house lights only cost a small amount to run but they can be a little savings..
i replaced my washing machine with a new one and looked for the most economical one for power and water...
Really if we push the household savings it can filter up through peoples attitudes changing...
and believe me, people will listen if you keep it simple...with your hobby, everyone of you will have an understanding what a planet will look like with a few extra degrees up or down..both ways are deserts when that temp is consistant...so what happens when the atmosphere completely collapses...I dont just condemn nuclear power, but all forms of destructive power...
i even feel guilty by using a pc when i dont have a solar panel outside...
My son and I have been discussing getting rid of the car and just having a motorbike, or gettin rid of both...it is feasible..push bike is not possible for me as i have some disability, but i can live with not having all these gadgets if it will make a difference..i think with a bit of suggesting by us all we can preserve our planet, but to have all these gadgets, we will destroy it...
Anyone remember the 70's and 80's, all the talks about the way the earth will kill itself and the polly's and so called scientists saying that, those scientists saying we are in trouble now,are all nutters...funny, how come what they predicted is happening faster, and the polly's are still telling us they have the answers..they never did then, why would they now...
I think people need to look more closely or err on the side of caution...If someone has no idea the polly will love them and call the person speaking up "a nutter"...
I have been on the recieving end of people like that, and i can tell you its not nice and then those same criticisers come knocking and want help, well yes i'm a fool cause i do help, but i am getting sick of being put down then being asked to help...now i am speaking up and this world needs to think about tomorrow not today...it even applies to buying things.."i want it now" well how about wait for a change, get some patience world and stop wrecking the only place we have to "live"!

[ving]

actually what was said just a few post up was interesting... I to dobt there are many aussies actually for newkiller power, but also you wont find many against... we are too laid back and our govt just walks over us with out she'll be right/it doesnt bother me/someone else'll do it atitudes :rolleyes:

:)

our decisions are made for us thru inaction

[wraithe]

what gets me is the amount the government will support the commercial extraction of coal...it would be nice if they help the people...oh yeh, the companies may have to lay off a worker...but why not re-employ them to another industry...we could be the world leader in alternative power...we are in the ideal position, and our industry for that has never got any decent support so far...imagine putting 100 million dollars into r&d for alternative electricity...well thats what will be needed to design a nuclear power station...building it will cost billions....depending on its size...

[norm]

What also needs to happen with the assistance of the Government is a change of peoples attitude towards power consumption usage. Can we modify our living conditions to use less electrical energy/water etc. Can we get to A to B without a car. Can the local council reduce the number of street lighting, hence reduce the demand for electricity.

This is a global effort on everyones behalf and it needs to start at home.

On the topic of solar power. We had a small terrace house several years ago and installed on it was a Solarhart hot water system. To be honest at best it was pretty average. We would have hot water in summer, no problems, but come winter, at best it was only warm (you could put your hand under the tap and you wouldn't be scolded). After a few checks on the unit, it was deemed working fine, booster settings set to the max. As a result we had to revert to offpeak 2 heating which defeated the cost savings, let alone the environmental savings.
And worse, we couldn't turn offpeak 2 off in summer without incurring a fee for doing so from the Utility company and as such we left it on permanently.:mad2:
Maybe things have improved 5 yrs ago.:rolleyes:

[fringe_dweller]

re solar power, I find it interesting that with unlimited solar power in the inner solar system in space, when it comes to big beefy missions that require serious ooomph, ie Cassini, planned mission to mars ect. NASA rely on nuke power for the ooomph, not solar.
Norm re your experience with solar hot water - in summer here, the outside water pipes get so hot anyway, we never have to turn the hot tap on anyway :P
wind, solar - just patchy unreliable bandaid technology, dreamy fiddling at the edges stuff.
and the vast majority of power and water ect. consumption is by industry, commerce, farming and mining.
Not domestic use as everyone seems to believe!

[mickoking]

We indeed have a backward looking government, A solar cell on every new building is a great idea and it was feasable even as far back as the eighties but no. The great men and women who infest parliament house holds sway to the lobby groups and money men.

Australia used to be tagged the 'clever country' but looking at something like nuclear power with out seriously exploring and investing in viable alternatives is a pretty doubtfull move (to put it lightly).

Having such a small population establishing nuclear power now would cause the price of electricity to rise dramatically, with minimal reduction on green house gasses and the problem of disposing the toxic waste (also very expensive).

I cannot see the advantages of setting up nuclear power in our country. Its a red herring.

[mickoking]

Spot on :thumbsup:

[gaa_ian]

Well speak up people, our Govt. has called for a public debate on this issue.
Make your voice heard where it counts, in the mainstream media.
We can talk about all we want here (and thats good) but if our voices are not heard publicly then there is no driver for change !
Lets see who can get a letter to the editor published & post a copy of it in this thread.
Go on I dare you :eyepop:

[mickoking]

You are spot on Ian. I am a vetran letter to the editor writer and quite sucsessfull too. But I became jaded by the political climate and stopped doing it a few years ago................BUT this is just the issue to get me fired up again.

Cheers :cheers: Mick

[mickoking]

I submitted an edited version of post 56 to The West Australian news paper. Lets see how we go ;)

[wraithe]

Well done Mick...lets keep fingers crossed....
Kathy...

[gaa_ian]

I have done the same with an edited Post # 24, I will find out today if it is published or not.

[ving]

hmm... i dont know much about solar cells. how do they stand up to hail storms?

[robagar]

they're supposed to be undamaged by 3/4" hail at 60mph ( namastesolar.com (http://www.namastesolar.com/faqs1.html#hailstorm))

[Argonavis]

Really, I don't know where some of this stuff comes from. Solar cells are an emerging technology, reliant on battery storage when the Sun shines for use when the Sun doesn't. Battery technology is very primitve and expensive. If it was economically beneficial to have solar cells on every roof, they would be there. It is an individual's decision as to whether to install them, nothing to do with lobby groups or money men, whoever they are.

For many countries, nuclear power is the only option. It is cheaper, safer and more reliable than most of the alternatives. As this site from Stanford University points out:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

the waste products from reprocessing only last 500 years and take up minimal storage space.

Australia is fortunate in having substantial amounts of coal to fire power stations, meaning that a nuclear option would not be economically feasible. The only problem is the emmission of CO2 from this technology, which fundamentalist environmentalist are trying to stop. If the world goes down the hysterical path laid out by the Kyoto protocol, Australia may need to turn to nuclear power to restrict emission of "greenhouse gases", or alternativelty reduce living standards. Do you want a modern health, education and transport system? or maybe not? Prefer to live and die like your great grandparents?

Unfortunately, this is based on the myth of "climate change". It you would like to look at the data:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.htm

you can make up your own mind on this.

or you can read a recent article to put you in the picture:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

[fringe_dweller]

Onya Argonavis - there the links that should of been posted much earlier, particularly that first one, perfect antidote to the greenie mumbo jumbo superstitous native claptrap, out of date anti-nuke propoganda, that permeates our world :thumbsup:
What maybe some people dont realise is that there are mining projects of significant value to this country that are currently shelved ( here in SA ) due to lack of power and water (desalination).
Seeing we won't have a manufacturing industry of significance pretty soon, due to unprecedented and unmatchable competition, I dont see were the future employment/revenue ect. is gonna come from, do you? if indeed you do, please share it with us :)

[Argonavis]

The 1978 Fox report is a good starting point into the nuclear industry as it covers the fuel cycle, but since then the technology has moved on. This was the basis of the 3 mines policy. South Australian may prefer more mines to generate further employment, perhaps.

If we look at our economic history over the past 100 years, as one industry declines others take their place and our standard of living has steadily improved. The decline of manufacturing will be replaced by service industries (which includes service provision to mining).

[fringe_dweller]

Thanks Argonavis - acknowledged, but surely mining (in its varying guises) has been a consistent integral and underwriting part of Australia's history the whole time? along with the sheeps back and all that.

[Argonavis]

My economic history is a little rusty, but I remember that Australia has been primarily a minerals exporter most of the last 200 or so years. Wool was only a major export earner in the 1830's and sometime in the 1900's - once gold was discovered in 1850 it made Australia the wealthest nation on earth for a time, and since then most exports have been minerals - iron ore, copper, silver, bauxite. The stock exchanges in the last century were dominated by BHP, Pancon, RioTinto etc. This mineral wealth has made Australia a lucky country despite the poor agicultural soils and harsh climate. Uranium is one part of this mix.

[mickoking]

Here is my letter to the editor The West Australian newspaper today.

[Miaplacidus]

Hi guys et gals,

I have deliberately avoided buying into this thread so far, and I haven't waded back through every post so maybe this observation has been made already — and hell, maybe I'm just plain wrong... but does it strike anyone else as strange or ironic that for so many years the commercial sector used to downplay the severity of global warming but now they are actually emphasizing how bad it is because they want to sell nuclear energy?

(Conspiracy theory number 3752 in a continuing series.)

Cheers,

Brian.

[wraithe]

http://www.solarpaces.org/SOLARTRES.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Two

[gaa_ian]

Some Impressive solar technology there !
Yep ! I got my letter published too, But my scanner is malfunctioning :mad2:
I will have to reload the software AGAIN! MS Windows!!! :screwy:

[fringe_dweller]

wonder why the Chinese and Indian's arent after that solar technology, but rather after our yellow cake? :confuse3: they all must be completely stupid? and the environazi's are the only smart people in the world? funny also the tradionally tightwad economic rationalists are all for it also? very strange?
interesting there was a phone poll in the advertiser on wednesday on this, and only 97 ppl responded, and pro nuke power won 60% to 40% - those figures sound about right to me, yay for democracy!. never thought I would be so glad of the inherent apathy in oz and the nazi party being in power (instead of the stalinist bolshies) I am shocked for the first time I actually agree with them on something! well you live and learn ;)
btw councils all over SA are putting there hands up very vigorously indeed - its oo ooo ooo pick me pick me LOL its a bunfight actually :D
and this expense angle thats used so frequently, is negated when you explain not all nuke plants have to behemoth full sized monsters - there are little boutique ones that cater to small localised area's/needs too
bad luck anti-nukers, youll have to leave the country now? oh hang what first world country will you go to that doesnt have nuke power in the world?

[mickoking]

I have had that thought as well and it may well be close to the truth :D

[fringe_dweller]

what? are the environazi's complaining that the powers that be have finally aknowledged this issue?
sheeesh no satisying you guys until we are back in the 15th century BC is there?

[mickoking]

Sorry :shrug: , I am just trying to have a friendly debate on the issue.

[fringe_dweller]

you should know by now Mick not to take me too seriously :D nobody else does, why should you? lol
The term environazi is just my way of making the point that people who seek to control things, even for what they believe is right, can seem totalitarian from a different point of view.
I feel that the extreme enviromentalists can be a little condescending at times too.
Along with Ving and others we are just bringing the other side of the aurguement into the debate, so its all not just a one sided 'living in the '70's greenie love-in'.

[norm]

The fact that it took over 20 years to decide on whether Sydney needed a 2nd airport (Badgery's Creek from memory) and that went down the gurgler.

The fact that Morris Iemma has just announced that another rail extension to the northwest corridor of Sydney will not be ready until 2017 (railway line here, not something in the magnitute of the Apollo project and that took less than 10 yrs!)

And the simple fact that we're even debating about a lousy water desalination plant.

Does anyone really think a Nuke Reactor will ever see the light of day in OZ.

Remember Children Overboard, Tampa Crisis. John Howard just wants another trump card in the impending election to divide Labour and what better way than a debate on Nuclear energy knowing too dam well it will split and divide them up.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the 3 mines policy that Labour endears to itself so much!

Mick's right, its a red herring, but for other reasons too.

[fringe_dweller]

fair and interesting comment Norm, but hey they talked about the darwin to adelaide rail link for 100 years, and then along came johnny (EDIT:srry:and his old mate tim fischer!!) and in no time flat hey presto it happened - we were all stunned here in adders.
With big money having a huge interest and willingness to invest in at least one or two happening (ironically they need one to mine even more uranium here in SA and all the other much more abundant goodies copper and gold ect. that they get at the same time) I'm not so sure about that - I certainly cant see lots of them being built, just the one or two small jobs to start with.
The main problem is they can't take much more water out of the great artesian basin for mining processes, hence the desalination interest. There's something going on with that, not sure of the full story. And I would like to see whats left of that preserved for sure, so I do have an ecological interest there.

[wraithe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Desalination
http://www.solar-desalination.com/
water, hmm....

[Argonavis]

No it's not a red herring to divide the ALP. Some in the ALP have admitted to me that the Uranium debate was lost with the 1977 election. It is a genuine debate on the future of uranium mining, reprocessing and the building of nuclear power plants in this country. The latest generation plants are quite capable of replacing coal fired, and would be very useful in those parts of Australia which do not have extensive coal reserves.

The SMH has been running some articles on this over the last few days. The latest is here:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/laser-enrichment-could-cut-cost-of-nuclear-power/2006/05/26/1148524888448.html

[Argonavis]

and here is another item from The Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19259989-30417,00.html

nuclear power stations - it seems that everyone wants one

[Argonavis]

except Greenpeace:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=41963

[norm]

I'm not at odds with having a debate over nuclear energy, its definitely needed. What I was saying is that it will definitely will be at odds with some labour party members, the most obvious is Peter Garrett.

On another note, reading the article in the SMH:



This is exactly the thing that just makes me SO annoyed with our government. No funding/backing or assistance in emerging technologies. Above is a prime example of something great/prosperous going offshore to a mega mammouth company.:mad2:

[acropolite]

Not correct Kearn, wind power is alive and doing very well in Tasmania and has been for years. Solar is viable, I have a shack that has been powered by solar for over 15 years. The power system is very modest, and so are my power requirements. When the weather is less favourable, I adjust my usage to suit. Building nuclear power stations is the ultimate bandaid, albeit a very toxic one, so is burning coal, as others have stated it will all be gone in a few years. Given that the current debate is fuelled by a report prepared the Nuclear industry it's not surprising that it's being pushed, especially given our current government's "favourable" handling of some parts of the energy sector (e.g. ethanol), to the detriment of others. You can also bet that if these accidents waiting to happen (nuclear power stations) are ever built that the mining and export of coal will continue, where's the sense in that? It's time that Joe Average started to question the actions of our pollies and the motivation behind them and take steps to efficiently use what we already have and not sell our children’s future for a few bucks for corporate interests and a short time solution to the energy crunch that is inevitable. As a race we need to examine the way we live, the damage we do and the unsustainable growth model all our economies rely on.
If you want to see the ultimate result when governments pander to industry come to Northern Tasmania and experience the (year round) filthiest air in the country courtesy of forestry interests, many tourists are writing to the media and refusing to return because of the constant air pollution. Consider this... Despite being designed and manuactured for decades, they still haven't been able to build a foolproof aeroplane (or anything else for that matter), what makes you think they can design and build a foolproof reactor.

[Argonavis]

acro - there is so much in this spray that I don't know where to start - but no technology is risk free and never will be. Life is not risk free, and our society has made massive strides in limiting energy use compared to the 1970's. The graph is not going off the scale because technological progress makes things cheaper and more efficient each new generation, which for technology is only about 5 years. I am pleased that you like to live low tech, but I don't think that will suffice for most of the world's population.

Why is there so much pollution in northern tassie? Forestry is pretty clean.

[Argonavis]

Norm - the government is a total failure in picking winners. For every technology that succeeds in the market place there are dozens that fail. I don't think taxpayers would be happy to see their money wasted.

Remember the steam car being developed in Australia? How much money did the government put up? It was over $500,000 at least. How many steam cars do you see in the streets?

Governments are very profiligate with other people's money.

[acropolite]

There is so much pollution because there is burnoff activity, over the past year almost constantly. When you have a high level of plantation forestry you have a high level of regeneration burning (Forestry burnoff is exempt from all appropriate environmental laws). Add to that the fact that they lay poison baits in the areas to kill off the native wildlife and aerial spray with chemicals (some of which have been banned in other countries). These chemicals have been sprayed on adjacent properties and run off in to our waterways. Growing plantations also reduce waterflow to rivers and streams. Four Corners did an excellent program on forestry in Tasmania, not that it helped, things are worse now than ever.

[fringe_dweller]

I don't think you read my words very carefully Phil, I said it might be viable in cold places like tassie and scandinavia were the turbines dont burnout if the weather gets too hot like it does here (over 35C), and they have to shut them down to avoid this happening. If thats not classed as patchy and unreliable I dont know what is?
We in SA apparently have 51% of australia's total windpower - and I think we have the highest electricity costs in the nation oddly? and we have to import a lot of out power from other states.
Anyway glad to see that bass strait power line from tassie plugged into the national grid recently :) thanks very much tassie!
Funny i wonder how much greehouse emissions were created making those enviroment destroying hydro-electricity dams? I actually toured one of them when i lived there as a kid, down the tunnel and saw the turbines (do they need replacing occasionally? might produce some greenhouse gasses?)
Glad we didnt have this attitude in the 50's!, the snowy ect. would NEVER of been built, australia would of been stuffed by this nanny state crap.
Actually does CO2 emissions during construction ect. get factored into all those pretty sky scrapers and public works in the eastern capital cities - and would they then be veteod coz of this? how much pollution is created when you build a coal/gas fired station/wind or solar farm/ - does anyone care? funny only care when it is created when you build a nuke plant!
How do you heat that shack on those cold nights Phil - solar power?
and re coal/gas power being cheapest - they wont be for much longer once they start adding pollution taxes to them and enforcing expensive emission controls onto the power stations :P and thats not far off now.

[acropolite]

Some good points there Kearn, I do heat my shack with LPG, although it's rarely required in the summer months. As for Hydro, it's mostly good news, except for the enormous debt incurred in building the schemes. What I'm really saying is that I don't believe that our current social and economic system is viable in to the future. We're living on borrowed time, using up resources at an alarming rate, nuclear power comes at a cost to present and future generations. Ask anyone whether they want a nuclear power plant built in their neighbourhood and you'll usually find the answer is no, even the pollies squirm when they're asked. Nuclear accidents aren't confined to state or even country boundaries. There has been an increased incidence of childhood cancers in Great Britain, a consequence of the Chernobyl accident. A nuclear faclility in central Australia could, in the event of an accident, spew radiation in to South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania, with the population of those states having no control over the spread of radiation. At the end of the day the nuclear plant will have limited life, then we are back to the same old question where is the energy coming from, renewables and efficient use of resources are the answer, surely it's better to take the hard decisions now rather than in the future.

[fringe_dweller]

No worries Phil :) , naturally I would like to see a simple and effective magic bullet(s) for looming energy crisis, like anyone would, but I am just trying to be pragmatic about it. When it comes to heating and cooling - the main volume use of domestic energy - I dont think the renewables are in the game yet.
how do we attract the people we need to this country when we expect them boil in their own juices and go troppo as a regular part of normal daily life in summer? a (like we ALL use too once - does anyone remember when a simple metal fan was for life and extremely expensive? as much comparitively as AC is now even probably ) I don't think that is attractive to a few? overseas people maybe?
Argo: I remember the steam cars too, in fact I think new versions of this idea making a comeback atm ;) - good old current affairs/news tv shows filler/fluff

[gaa_ian]

There is a lot of depth in this debate to be sure!
There is so much we can do to conserve energy ! do we build energy efficient houses? Generally not! why ? It takes a bit of thought, a bit of foresight.
Build a brick box, A/C or heat it & all is good ????
The knowledge to do these things well has been around for a very long time, but our socity is a slave to fashion !
I think the poll on Apathy sums it up Q: what do you think about apathy A: I don't know & I don't care !
I think the statement made earlier about nuclear powerplants "it seems that everyone wants one" is perhaps a little overstated Argo.
Just wait to see how people will ***** and protest if someone says "OK we will build one in your suburb !

[wraithe]

South australia would be an ideal state to build a solar tower...Just up past Port Augusta and you would have nearly all year round sunshine...
a couple of 100 megawatt towers would make some diference to south australias power needs, and be environmentally safer too...
that area is ideal for this type of power supply and would be able to supply power for a water desalinator...I know what water is like in Port Pirie(I never would drink it), as my family are from there.. Now south aussie would be the most suitable to go solar..In western australia and the territory and queensland all have ideal places for solar towers and can be built within easy distance of major cities and towns...

http://www.enviromission.com.au/ this is a Victorian proposal so far...
and http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/ in NSW...
Thats just so far what i have found in the pipeline for australia, and these are both involving one private company...

[Argonavis]

So what "social and economic"system do you prefer? The Albanian economic model? All those happy Albanians enjoying the fruits of their collective labour?
Perhaps Phil's socialist state will be better? and what would that look like?



No one seems to want anything in their backyard - whether it is a wind turbine or a coal fired or nuclear fired power station, or a dam. Perversely, everyone wants to be able to switch a light switch or turn a tap and get instant electricity and water.



cite your source



Chernobyl was 20 years ago - and nuclear technology has moved on. Even at the time it was poorly engineered, no doubt due to a social and economic system that is not "current". Nuclear engineering is very safe. Which is why there is this public debate. An interesting item in a recent Occams Razor put the case for nuclear:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1048595.htm

No other technology has the same cost-benefit as nuclear, except coal. The sad truth is that photovoltaics, hydro and wind generation are expensive and unreliable, and tidal generation is only a concept.

sorry

[gaa_ian]

That is one very impressive concept Wraite !
Has their been any proof of concept designs done & what is the cost/ MW of this type of power ?

[wraithe]

this is a quote from the bulletin:


There’s no doubt that it works – efficiently, reliably, and simply. In 1982, Professor Jörg Schlaich’s engineering consultancy, Schlaich Bergermann and Partner (SBP) based in Stuttgart, Germany, built a 200m tall, 50-kilowatt prototype solar thermal tower near Manzanares, south-eastern Spain. The then West German government was sufficiently intrigued by Schlaich’s concept to subsidise construction of the prototype on foreign soil. By coincidence, it was completed as the most intense El Niño event of the 20th century heralded the onset of a rapid warming phase in global climate that continues today.
The greenhouse gas emissions gen-erated in the building phase would be recouped within the first two-and-a-half years of operation, says Davey. Thereafter, it’s a free lunch: zero emissions, convertible to carbon credits in a global market.
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/6f41c1d13a3b1f07ca256c2700808185/a7bd712d34ae25b3ca256b12001ba833/Body/0.924?OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpgThe Manzanares plant ran for seven years, with minimal tuning and maintenance, delivering electricity both night and day into the local power grid. Manzanares, in Spain’s La Mancha province, was selected because of its hot, dry climate but there was an unintended symbolism in the choice. Schlaich’s radical solar thermal system tilts not just at the great windmills sprouting from coastal landscapes in many developed nations, it throws down the gauntlet to conventional, coal-fired power stations.
Other solar thermal technologies focus the sun’s radiation with arrays of mirrors or sun-tracking, polished cylinders to vaporise water, and drive steam turbine generators. Their big drawback: they don’t run on moonshine. Schlaich’s solar tower generates energy 24 hours a day by exploiting three old principles: the chimney, greenhouse and windmill.
The “draw” that sustains an open-hearth fire exploits the temperature differential between the warm room and the cooler outside air, which is greatest on cold nights. Warm air rises, creating a convective flow. In the atmosphere, temperatures fall by 1°C per 100m of altitude, so the air at the top of a 1km-tall tower is about 10°C cooler than at the base. Schlaich’s design amplifies this differential by feeding heated air into the tower from a vast greenhouse “skirt” around its base.
The 5km-diameter greenhouse will be constructed of high-impact glass or polycarbonate supported on a metal frame. The Manzanares prototype experimented with both and suffered no damage in occasionally violent storms that delivered baseball-sized hailstones.
A convective airflow moving at 35km/h to 50km/h will spin the 32 wind turbines mounted about 40m above ground level, generating a peak output of 200MW.


here is the link to check it out yourselves...
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/All/A7BD712D34AE25B3CA256B12001BA833!op en

[wraithe]

[OH the sceptics...This is quite normal for the knockers, so i have provided it here for anyone that has said its not feasible to use solar power...]


The concept excites engineers but Davey is realistic about the scepticism he will encounter in Australia. One senior executive in the wind-power sector recently dismissed the solar thermal tower as “just a chimney”, claiming it won’t work. Davey proffers a photograph of the Manzanares plant and says simply: “He should do his homework.”

[Yes it wont work here cause its not spain...lol...]

Already, a chill wind is swirling around the huge wind turbines that have sprung up on the Victorian coast. Last week, the Victorian chairman of the National Trust, Randall Bell, called for a moratorium on their construction until the state develops a master plan for the energy industry.
“We might go down this track and find it’s a no-through road and suddenly we find our landscape, and our coastline, littered with this sort of technology that we might all agree is a blight on our landscape. But we’ll be stuck with it for 50, maybe even 100 years,” Bell says.

[I like this comment, maybe those big nuclear power station chimneys look better than a solar tower...well i spose they do have a figure and not just straight up...]

At 500m apart, an array of 1MW wind turbines would need to be built more than two-deep along the 3000km length of Victoria’s coastline to replace Victoria’s current 7672MW generation capacity.
A 1km solar tower would be far more conspicuous but the corresponding “footprint” of 40-odd towers would be less than 800 sq km; about 28km on a side. And residents of the sparsely populated Millewa region around Neds Corner, with its flat vistas of wheat farms, limestone plains and low sand dunes, might welcome some vertical relief.

[i wonder, if my memory serves me right, these towers should create thermals...any glider pilots here, let me know if this is correct...these towers may create some large thermals that could be used by birds and gliders to do some nice flying....
Anyway back to reality, i havent found any costings for these but they do say that they will recover the costs to the environment for construction, within 2 1/2 years....]

[wraithe]

Damm i should have read a bit further...Here is a quote on costs from the bulletin.........



EnviroMission and SBP estimate the cost of their first 200-megawatt solar thermal tower at $670m, and say the cost of subsequent towers would fall. An engineering infrastructure, materials manufacturing plants and trained workforce would be in place and the design and construction would have been refined.
The initial cost is comparable with the $600m cost of building a new 200MW brown-coal power station and a drying plant for the coal, which is nearly 70% water by weight. A 200MW black-coal power station in Queensland would cost $440m. Davey says these prices ignore the unknown environmental and health costs of greenhouse gas, sulphur and particulate emissions from coal-fired power stations.
Each solar tower would abate between 920,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually from fossil fuels. Solar towers would help Victoria, which is heavily dependent on brown coal-sourced electricity, out of its bind in the Latrobe Valley.
The Bracks government has been criticised for its plan to create jobs by ramping up power production from the valley, where unemployment rates are among the highest in the nation. But burning more brown coal would compromise Australia’s obligation to reduce its greenhouse emissions under the Kyoto protocol, which requires it contain its emissions by 2010 to within an 8% increase of 1990 levels.
By 2010, Australia’s energy supply companies must purchase 10% of their electricity from renewable sources. The figure is now 8%, most of it from hydro-electric power. Emerging solar technologies are likely to provide much of the 2% increase.
Davey believes government support for the solar tower project would mollify both local and international critics of Australia’s greenhouse policies. After years of government neglect of the industry, he says, Australia must “stand up and be counted on its attitude towards renewable energy, especially solar energy”.

[Adrian-H]

the damage caused by fossel fules, makes regulated nuclear energy harmless.

[Kieken]

First of all, I did not read the entire thread because it’s pretty large (and I have just 20 minutes) so I took a quick look. My apologies if I write something that has already been said or so.

Now, the situation here in Belgium is funny. Our politicians want to shut down every nuclear power plant before 2025 (if possible before 2015) but almost 60% of our own produced energy is generated by 2 big facilities plants (one with 4 cores is less then 10km from my place). The rest is generated by gas or coal plants. The amount of energy generated by wind or sun is less then 2%. In total we produce 22% of our energy; the rest is imported from France and Germany. Ironically France produces 75% of their energy in …… nuclear power plants.

Still, Groen! (the greenies in Belgium) want them away. I agree that nuclear energy is dangerous for us and our environment but we Belgians are not capable of replacing the energy of the nuclear power plants by windmills or solar panels. But if we don’t want to become completely dependent from other countries we must do something.

According to dr. Joris Soens we only have place for 350 midsize turbines (if we build them on the land). Enough for 200.000 inhabitants, or 2% of all the Belgians). If we really try we could build 700 turbines but then we would have to build them almost everywhere. Still that’s only enough for 400.000 Belgians. Luckily we have a coastline of 60km and some territorial waters which we can use for windmills if not for the people who live there. Most of them don’t want those things to be their since it’ll pollute their views. Anyway, if we would build them anyway we would be able to feed another 1 or 2%, so in total if we would build them no matter what we would be able to feed 5 or 6% of all Belgians.

Another option would be solar energy. The maximum to produce in Belgium would be 450GWh but in 2003 we had to produce 78.1TWh to have enough. So basically we need to find something else.

If you ask me we have to build more or at least keep these plants up and running. We have very good storage facilities some 600 feet under the ground (again not far from me but hey, Belgium is not big) and I think in the future we will be able to reuse what the produce or find ways to get rid of them in a better way + if we want to help Kyoto and ourselves we cant build gas and/or oil plants.

[fringe_dweller]

Kieken, thats very interesting read there mate, well said, you know your stuff, illustrates everybody is in the same boat world over! (I remember the price of electricity/energy/fuel in the UK *shudder*)
Wraithe, some good research and points there - but its not consumers that have to be convinced of renewables - its industry ect. that will decide it in the end I feel.
That wind/thermal tower concept was in the advertiser years ago (i think it was gonna built near renmark from memory?) - like most of this debate, includin that article from argo re A/C - we have been having this debate much longer than the other states, as we have been feeling the crunch first. I would say about 5 years easy we have been seeing in depth articles on this subject here in SA.
When you live at the end of a dying river/drain you are the first to react!
And Ian thats a very good point about houses being built to minimise energy use - do you think they ever will stop building those eave-less, veranda-less mcmansions now?

[wraithe]

Just a question kieken.. is there any swell generators being used in Belgium..I read a quite few years back that the dutch where experimenting with them..
Curious if there is enough swell from the atlantic to drive them..Another thing is they can be incorporated with a windmill, using the swell generator as a base...

[gaa_ian]

I don't know about the houses Kearn, when I was in Vic recently I was surprized to see the number of new eveless houses ! Not real smart design !
Its not hard to work out where the sun moves & how U can take advantage of that :shrug:

[Kieken]

To be honest I've never heard of any experiment here in Belgium or in Holland with swell generators. Perhaps some are already in use but I don't think that it'll be much.

There's one in Scotland though good for 75kW.

[wraithe]

dont remember enough about it to say much else...what i do remember is that it was some where near the sea walls they have...and i think thats a big area...sorry...couldnt find anything on swell generators on the net either...

[Kieken]

Then you must be referring to the Deltawerken. I've found a small text in Dutch where they mention swell generators but not that the are being used in the walls.

[g__day]

Some data for you:

1. Safe disposal of an incredibly toxic and corrosive substance, that in minute quantities can pollute an entire ecosphere of a country - either as a water based pathogen or worse as a more mobile airborn dust - which can cause genetic mutations for 50 - 200 millennia, when so far we have knowledge how to store waste for about 0.05% of its half life so far - is a fallacy. In that timeframe plate tectonics would shift any site about 2,000 killometers horizontally and who knows how far vertically and over what fault zones.

Think nuclear is safe - visit kid of speed - its an amazing blog of Chernobyl 20 years on from the eyes of a biker chick whos dad worked on the main reactor http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

2. Space isn't the issue. A large leak or a terrorist attack resulting in an airborne pathogen would wipe out most of this hemisphere given a few decades for the trade winds to blow it around.

3. Even Japan with all its safety precautions, six sigma TQM and redundant backup systems only very narrowly averted a major nuclear disaster last year that could have killed (initially thousands if not ten or a hundred times more).

4. Did you know that in 1980s solar cells took 20 years to payback their installation? Today the figure is 2.5 ~ 5 years given rising energy costs and vastly improved manufacturing costs and cell efficency. Using thinner strained silicon techniques costs have fallen considerably and within a decade cells may be alot closer to the 80% theoretical maxium. On average for our longitude homes recieve 75 kilowatt/hours of energy falling on each house (which typically consumes on 20 - 30 kw/hr of energy a day). In labs today exotic materials have achieved 50% efficency. Typical high end cells of today reach 30% - compared to 15% for high end cells of 3 years ago, and 5 - 10% for cells made over 5-6 years ago.

I'd say its 5 - 10 years until solar is extremely viable commercially, plus you can trade pollution eliminated under Kyoto agreements for serious tens to hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Few studies have factored that last bit in. If you use solar farms to generate the energy for a solar large cell production facility itself then the long term fixed and variable roduction costs plummet - with very little pollution.

I'd rather see heavy investment in solar until cold fusion was achieved. And any reactor built today should be a Thorium based one that can't go critical in the event of a coolant misfunction.

[gaa_ian]

A very well though out response, G_day.
You point #1 is the Key factor!
While I appreciate Kiekens situation in his country, perhaps it is the case that not all nations can safely produce their own power ?
This is where transcontinental powergrids come into play ?
One key factor that has been pointed out to me (I have raised this debate in our local media) is the need for Zero population growth !
Arguably our Planet's Eco-System simply cannot cope with expodentially increasing population growth ?

[mickoking]

Thats a very good point. We have these huge bland suburbs spreading from our capital cities and the overwhealming majority of the houses in them are not designed to take advantage of the natural evironment. houses like most things in our consume first/ live later society are based on the whims of fasion and keeping up with the jones'es.

[wraithe]

has anyone thought that if the people that live in the houses built today could use there roof space for more than just solar panels...ok i agree and would install them in a home in the burbs but this space could be used for other things too....design homes so you can put gardens on roofs and play areas...if they made these areas less reflective then they could reduce there heating and cooling costs....a lawn area on the roof isnt such a silly idea....

[xelasnave]

There are two worlds the one we would like to be in and the reality of a world where errors do happen, shortcuts are taken and it is always someone elses fault.
Make some quick comparisions of accidents that have already happened in each industry to date. Oil does some major damage in spills that is for sure, and they should not happen, regulations say there will be penalties etc... but a regulation is simply man's effort to control things, regulations can never fix the mess.
A regulation as to disposal of waste, safety mesures etc cause added production costs and as such there is good enough reason that there will be times where those are the corners that will be cut.
You sound like the guy who came on the TV warning against "scare mongers" as thought these people were concerned over nothing... such an atitude needs to be pulled up so that meaningful debate can occure and folk who have genuine concerns are not painted as fools.
Anyone selling their product will only put a favorable light on its application for humanity and at the moment there is a lot of selling begining to take place.. dont expect to hear the con case get much air play.
Really if anyone was serious about the problem and not concerned about selling cake better alternatives can be made work.
I would rather a landscape of windmills etc than grandchildren who glow in the dark. Lets get real.
alex

[acropolite]

One other factor is worth consideration. Consider the timing of this investigation into nuclear technology and our PM's return from a recent trip to the US. Our PM has aligned himself with a leader who, despite whatever your personal opinions are of him, is generally accepted to have successfully engineered the outcome of two presidential elections aided and abetted by the owner of the company that manufactures and supplies the electronic voting machines used during the election (for those interested there is this article (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen) in Rolling Stone magazine). I have seen several programs and read articles on the rigging of these elections and I have no doubt that the facts presented are true. Add to that the fact that any Nuclear power generation/enrichment equipment would be most likeley be supplied by US companies and the fact that our PM has been described by GoergeW as the regions "Deputy Sherriff" and you should hear alarm bells ringing. I don't believe the sudden concern on greenhouse emissions by our PM is genuine and is nothing but spin put on the debate, if he were serious about greenhouse emissions there would be a series of initiatives in place by now to efficiently use the energy resources we have and further the development of renewables Australia would have signed the Kyoto protocol.. There is no doubt in my mind that this nuclear agenda is being driven by mining interests coupled with US political and interests. The fact that our Government would engage in a debate on a technology that is accepted as extremely risky scares the hell out of me. :tasdevil:

[xelasnave]

To me it is so transparent. But it is nice to be able to observe how a lobby group do their work. I have been noticing "little" things for a while now. The "greens" have been defused on the issue as they have helped cause the problem, or rather the issue to be at front of mind.
But politics is all about money, nothing else, so with an assett such as uranium it will get up. I doubt if a major explosion or melt down would change that because they will introduce regulations that prevent such things ever happening again... the power of paper over rock I guess.
In the environment they create with the threat of terroism it would seem prudent to be looking at ways we can get away from such dangerous things being common place... but where are the dollars in that approach?
AND I dont enjoy being old and cynical but near 60 years on the planet what do you recon.
alex

[fringe_dweller]

ok can see this debate becoming extremely one sided again - with the nuclear boogieman under the bed scaring everyone again.
oh only now with nukes are people concerned about Howards attatching his star to Bush's U.S. style star, and the morality of his government, geez!
To Howards credit, I loved his public rebuke to the U.S wanting to lease (LOL - that was hilarious) yellow cake and send it back afterwards, with the you buy it, you keep it line.
ok lots of stuff/debate has passed through the papers/media on this subject since my last post here, most interesting of all to me was the article by Tim Flannery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery (still unable to create hotlinks word/tags in safari) in the advertiser - and he is of the view that we simply do not have enough time to rely on emerging renewable technology dealing with the the problem of CO2 emissions, and we should go nuclear as fast as possible. He presented a strong case in my view.
someone suggested going back to carts/horses - sorry just more green house emissions - methane ;) dont laugh its very serious the contribution of livestock to this - specially when there are enough to feed billions of people lol.
In the debates I have seen ie letter to the editor ect, I see the same old weary chestnut of 'what about chernobyl' in my view this just discredits the anti-nuke arguement as it has been explained ad nauseum how that happened and they are disingenous to continue using it imo. basically smacks of baseless propaganda to keep using that one.
PS does anyone remember the hullabaloo/hysteria when microwave ovens came out in the late 70's/early 80's? man we were all going to die horribly if i rememeber correctly - this smacks of the same vibe to me.

[fringe_dweller]

I am surprised non of the anti-nukers picked up that bit of possible propaganda from greenpeace in the papers recently regarding contamination of groundwater from waste storage in the famous champagne region - not that we have that problem here - to much desert for that
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/radioactive-champagne-30-06-06 thatll put a glow in the bubbly LOL
do i have to do your work for ya's hehe :)

anyway I go back to my dream of a terraformed arid australia ringed with nuke power staions powering huge desalination plants that turn the deserts into veritable edens

[xelasnave]

Explaining something makes it better?
The thing happened and no doubt there are many accidents waiting to happen no one has yet envisaged....thats why accidents are called such...they form a catagory beyond that of negligence. However I see little comfort in knowing what went wrong when couting the cost of the accident (or any accident)
Going back to horse and cart may not be the answer but logic does not dictate that as this is the case N power is the winner by default. Perhaps a little thing like "lets get the cities road system and public transport system more efficient, limit personal vehicles to 2 ltres or smaller" could help???. The number of 4wds that never see the dirt outnumber those that do...no lets leave all that in place and sell some cake....how can one accept we have a serious problem when hippocracy touches every aspect of our energy usage, if the problem is so great why is it that immediate action is not being taken...We see how easy it is for a Government to impliment laws suitable to its idealogy that can cause initial hurt without any concern yet here nothing..there is no idealogy here except go with the flow (of money that is)...sorry they do restrain us by taking about half our fuel budget in tax ..otherwise everyone would have those huge Jeeps the US army uses...does anyone really believe that?
But I suppose given the N powered stations world wide it will be difficult to turn back the clock so as the Treasurer would observe "why not" as if the fact that other are doing it is a reasonable justification. That is not leadership and as an addmirer of Peter Costello I am disappointed is his far to casual approach to a very serious issue.
I recall discussions that the real dollar cost of N power was such that it had no future yet there seems little coming up as to that aspect now.
And of course years down the track the vendor of the U will be put upon (as is the case now) to store the waste for "ever".
AND I do like Mr Howard and respect him and his leadership..but do you think we will not end up with the storage problem... all of that is just so much talk to spice up the debate. The issue will move from there to "we can do it safely new information to hand suggests we have been too hasty and we can store it after all.."
Its going this way.. "lets have a debate and then we will do it".. not "lets have a debate to see if we will do it"....that is what really is getting to me.
AND promises to the public mean zero unless we have seen every promise broken that ever will be and in the future a Government stands by its word without waver (an impossible political situation which I recognise but for some reason promisees dont).
Now if you want to know how I really feel dont hesitate to ask
alex
alex

[fringe_dweller]

granted no Alex, but twisting the facts and/or misrepresenting them by omission or otherwise is just plain wrong, and since this arguement/incident forms the basis of much of the objections I have read, I think it is worth mentioning again.

no arguement here on that, hipocracy is alive and well i feel, and I would love to see city dwelling 4WD's taxed out of existence - I just see them simply as a freudian symbol of unbridled aggression

The only thing I have seen howard and his cronies ever do is take the credit for the long lasting favourable world wide economics and resources boom - which again has nothing to do with him, and play the race card at election time - oh and slash the welfare state - which isnt a revolutionary rocket science thing to do imo, and practice thatcher economics by the numbers.
and your right - the pro nukes are quiet arent they - they know what the libs/big bizz say usually happens regardless, I mean during tampa ect. I never saw much from the silent partner majority of howard supporters, the anti's were the loudest and most prolific writers - non of which made not a lick of difference - they dont care what he does as long as their interest rates dont go up, she'll be right mate

[mickoking]

I concur, couldn't put it better my self.

[xelasnave]

Just to clear something up.. my attempted humour (and this is not an attempt to get onside with those against John and Peter) was possibly missed but I confess I was trying to be "funny" when referring to my respect for the leadership etc etc.... but in truth I do I not like them and their policies their tricks and broken promises. The pursuit of idealogies engineered to benefit a minority at the expence of the majority is un Australian. For those liberals who took me under their wing as one of them I say sorry I am not... but I dont like the other bunch either I must confess as their performance in opposition is simply pathetic. If the Government has an open wound the opposition will argue on what colour the bandage should be.. the missed opportunity...they should be rebuked because they simply can not get it together... ten years and they still dont know who is their leader for the next election at any given moment..talk about uncertainty principle.
alex

[wraithe]

i have just discovered the solution for nuclear waste...it is a place that has no commercial value and of no benefit to anybody that counts...will not effect the nation and can be stored under a lot of unwanted sewage waste...a bit of gas over head could be a problem but it has always been there so its acceptable....the place is right under a building....

Parliament house - Canberra...
:rofl:
:D

[fringe_dweller]

:rofl: I'm an anarchist by politics anyway, and we dont have an organised party as such :P

Wraithe, i wish people would stop voting for politicians , it only encourages them as they say hehe :)

[JimmyH155]

I have just looked through thr entire web site of photographs sent by g__day. I have completely changed my mind on nuclear energy. Anybody of a sound mind who still promotes the use of nuclear energy can't be sane. Is anybody seriously saying that another Chernoble will never happen? No Jumbo jets ever crashed?
I suggest those of you who havent looked at the site, do so. Here it is again http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

[Argonavis]

well, you have just stuffed your own argument there, because people still fly in "Jumbo" jets even though they crash. It's the price paid for technology. Would you prefer that we were all still living in caves?

Emerging technologies will always have issues. Despite Chernobyl, Europe still has nucler powered generators. How many people dies from Chernobyl? 50? 70? A UN Report suggested that maybe a further 9000 will die prematurely from radioactive fallout. How many will die in road accidents? Should cars be banned? Yes Chernobyl was a disaster. However the engineering is improving to reduce risk and elimate waste hazards. Many industries produce hazardous wastes. Do you close down industries because of it? or do you deal with the waste disposal issue?

Our progress as a species is measured in how we engineer our technology to serve human need. The whole issue of nuclear power needs to be looked at rationally and dispassionately. Else you are reducing yourself to the shock horror outrage tactics of those tablod TV shows that invariably follow on from the news. Are we going to be an intelligent species, or not?
Nuclear power is just about the only alternative fuel source to coal or oil fired power stations.

[wraithe]

to the first bit..mmm.. why not, best heating and cooling system around and cooberpeddy still has homes underground...are you saying that they are cave men for it...i also have a friend who built his house underground and he has been thru several bush fires and still there, but the neighbours have had to rebuild everytime...


second quote from you is wrong, in so many ways...get your blinkers off please, it is not the only alternative, the us used that one at the end of WW2 when they dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...why didnt they just allow the Japanese to sign the peace treaty in France instead...because they want the world to be at there knees....If nuclear energy is the only answer then the countries that have stopped building new reators must be wrong...even the US dont put any huge money into nuclear power stations....are we sheep in this country and have to follow every one down the path of nuclear energy or can we be brave and stand outside the circle....NZ dont have them and why should we when we have so many other options(oh yeh. you just said we don't, sorry i forgot)...

[JimmyH155]

Argonavis,
If you,ve bothered to look at those photographs (and read the text regarding the number of deaths) - just imagine a chunk of our beloved Australia looking like that - Victoria farmland? Sydney? It's complete madness to even contemplate. If we go nuclear, see you in the caves.

[fringe_dweller]

well thats hardly a serious option for most people, what about claustrophobic ppl :P



well i hardly think having 100 nuke reactors in the US is lacking in comittment to nuke power
are we sheep that has to follow the anti-nuke line? that arguement goes both ways
NZ doesnt have 40% of the worlds known easily recoverable uranium reserves (its like god meant us to have nuke power?)- and it doesnt have vast badlands to dump waste, or build plants on
anyway the world needs NZ as a refuge for when the merde hits the fan :P

[fringe_dweller]

Jimmy you are continuing to take a tack based on emotion - stick to the facts - the 1950's chernobyl plant design and management systems was pure folly - an accident waiting to happen (it was human error that caused the whole meltdown, not nuclear power btw)

[Argonavis]

and you would know. Well it shouldn't providing that proper risk management strategies are used. This is an emotional argument with no basis in fact. Did Bhopal mean that no one builds chemical factories anymore?

Why would you say "see you in caves"? Is that the best you can do? Nuclear power plants are not nuclear explosives, they should not explode with proper containment facilities. The technology is also moving away from pressure water reactors to gas diffusion. Safety is not an issue.

Are you prepared to look at all the costs, risks and benefits of this technology ? This is the first step to the nuclear power option, and there is no harm in taking it and drawing some conclusions whether it is worthwhile. Anything else is luddite.

[Kieken]

@ Wraithe: The USA did not drop the bomb on Japan just to get the world on their knees but to end the war in a more speedy way. Germany was already blown away by tons of explosives (Dresden anyone?) so basically Germany could not bring up the forces for a decent resistance.. Japan however was still active. They were still present on the continent and on a couple of island in the Pacific. Everybody back then knew that the Japansese would never surrender (or atleast not that easy) so basically it was the only thing you could do (besides sending more troops to get slaughtered). I don't say it was a good thing they did but I think it saved more lives then ending the war without them. The war lastest only 9 days after Hiroshima.

About not building nuclear reactors. Sweden has started one not so long ago, and so will Finland. In my opinion these countries are pretty concerned about their forests, people and stuff. I think it's better then bulding yet another plant that works on coal or oil. Their wastes cannot be reused. Nuclear wastes (which are dangerous, yes I know) can be reused. New types of power plants use the waste as their fuel to generate power.

[mickoking]

The US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki to put the wind up stalin. The Japenese were on the cusp of surrendering anyway(their forces by this stage were almost completely crippled). 300000+ lives wasted for politics.

[Argonavis]

and you would know because you were there, right? Like Forrest Gump.

the atomic bomb was used to force the surrender of Japan. all the signs were that the Japenese would fight to the last.

[gaa_ian]

A few (more) Points:
- Australia does not have "Badlands" we have desert ecosystems
- Human Error will continue to occur (this includes the handling of Nuke waste)
- economic rationalism will ensure that corners are cut.
- No matter how well built a Nuke power station is it will not outlast the nuclear fuel it contains & the contamination within it
- I do acknolwedge the new technology makes a modern reactor safer, but how do you stop people from making mistakes & cutting corners ?

[wraithe]

reuse of nuclear fuel....yes and no...
it is reused in breeder reactors, but what about the waste from them...
reprocessing only extracts so much and leaves residue that is worse again...
there is and probably will be nuclear waste...problem is what sort of waste do we need in the future...and there are alternatives but nobody wants to bite the bullet and use them...the propaganda over lords have done a good job for nuclear energy, but alas, check the ancestry of the companies pushing nuclear power, you may find they use to build fossil fueled power stations under a different name...what better way to sell a product than to dismiss one that is being used....
as for claustrophobia at living in caves, hmmm i dont like homes with ceilings less than 10 feet but i would live in a cave if i had to...i usually do when i go to perth, the homes have 7 foot and 8 foot ceilings, cant reach a light globe in my home without using a chair or ladder...


and the other issue...japan...is it worth killing innocent civilians to win a war...dont claim to be civilised when killing innocent people...dresden in germany was another total annihialation...hitler dropping bombs on london... it was all tit for tat... people didnt vote for war, polititions do tho... and why target them with bombs of destruction for politics... and if you think i wouldnt know what its like in the military, think again, i served my time for this country and have an injury to remember it..(and yes i'm a woman)...

[wraithe]

I would like to put a few ideas to everyone here:

1/ The atomic testing at the atols, that the french have done.. underground, but still atmospheric fallout...where is that fallout dispersed to..
any body here into meteorology, is it possible that it has travelled to parts of the globe...
2/ Nuclear accidents, where does that fallout end up...where in the world does it end up in the end...
3/ look at a bush fire, the smoke ends up hundreds of miles from where the fire is, is that not how nuclear fallout(albiet, nuclear accidents or tests) travels but usually at a higher altitude...
4/ How many tests with nuclear weapons have been done world wide so far...
5/ Maralinga, Barrow island, there are more on Australian soils...How long before it will be inhabitable...
6/ The government said it was safe and they had the scientists back them up...But people believe a government sponsored scientist over one who is not on there books...Wow, of course all the letters after there name make them know all...
Are we not willing to question these people and want answers to all issues or just accept that they will tell you the truth...Power gel is fairly safe but dont drop it, it may explode, nuclear is no difference...how many here would sleep with a kilo of gelly...with a nuclear power station you have so many things against there use why take a chance on some thing so dangerous, would it not be prudent to use another method of power generation even if its not as efficent...but not damaging to the environment or the future...

[ving]

you drive a car jimmy? more deaths have been caused by motorvehicle accidents... just not all in one go. :)

the plant was created in the 1950s' i believe, comparing that plant to one built today and saying the safety standards havent changed is no different to saying that the safety standards of a 1950's car is the same to todays standard.... can you really compare them?

[Kieken]

War isn't civilised in anyway. Even when only politicians would die it is uncivilised. But to end certain uncivilised things we have to do from time to time certain uncivilised things. I'm against all nuclear weapons and I would rather have them banned then anything else. The only thing is that without the bomb the war could have lasted yet another year or so. Here in Europe the USA thought to be in Berlin somewhere end '44 but the got stuck here in Belgian because of heavy battle in the Ardennes (Germans used everything, even children and seniors). But their back was already broken. Japan was a different story. They were in battle since '37 and even after 6~7 years of battle the USA had problems with Japan. Though Russia also started fighting against the Japanese in northern China, Japan still had an entire island for their own full of people they could use in battle.

Oh, and Dresden? Hitler killed some 30.000 people in London and destroyed it almost over the course of 4~5 years, the Allies killed something between 30.000 and 65.000 people in one night and thereby destroyed the entire city in just a couple of hours. In total 3900 tons of bombs were dropped and 1.300 tons of incendiaries. When you take in fact that the Allies knew how the weather was (very cold so hot air would raise fast => suction) but still decided to continue. Another thing is that the factories were situated around Dresden, but where were the bombs dropped? In the centre. When did they do it? February ’45, Germany was almost defeated (Germany lasted until 8 may before admitting they lost on paper).

Back to the fuelstuff: the waste from a traditional plant can be reused in a breeder that on his turn produces fuel for a normal plant. This makes fuel for the breeder and ……. The tiny bit of waste that is produced has a halftime of 30~40 years. So storing it for 100~200 years would make it somewhat safe. I guess this waste is “better” then the waste we have now, not? Our highly radioactive waste has a halftime of a couple of thousand years.

As I stated in the beginning of this post I’m against nuclear weapons but a lot of those early tests taught us the dangers and benefits from uranium and plutonium. Any tests after the 1950 can be seen as unnecessary. Probably more then 60% of all the tests before 1950 were unnecessary to. We learned a lot but at the end the fallout was there. A nuclear plant has a lower risk on exploding and spreading fallout then a bomb. Here in Europe we never had any problems with nuclear energy, only in 1986 when a human error (someone forgot to tell the people who operated the reactor what they could and couldn’t) started perhaps the biggest nuclear catastrophe ever known (some 150.000~200.000 people will die eventually from the effects from the radiation). Other incidents with reactors caused in total 4 known deaths.

[Argonavis]

The firestorm was a deliberate tactic to destroy the city, from the brilliant mind of astrophysicist Freeman Dyson (as I recall). Remember Dyson spheres? same bloke. He is still alive and publishing. His son did some interesting things too, like live up a tree in British Columbia for a year.

[wraithe]

There are some missing....
December 12, 1952

A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.
October 1957

Fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool.
Winter 1957-'58

A serious accident occurred during the winter of 1957-58 near the town of Kyshtym in the Urals. A Russian scientist who first reported the disaster estimated that hundreds died from radiation sickness.
January 3, 1961

Three technicians died at a U.S. plant in Idaho Falls in an accident at an experimental reactor.
July 4, 1961

The captain and seven crew members died when radiation spread through the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered submarine. A pipe in the control system of one of the two reactors had ruptured.
October 5, 1966

The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Mich., melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.
January 21, 1969

A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, releases a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.
December 7, 1975

At the Lubmin nuclear power complex on the Baltic coast in the former East Germany, a short-circuit caused by an electrician's mistake started a fire. Some news reports said there was almost a meltdown of the reactor core.
March 28, 1979

Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, America's worst nuclear accident occurred. A partial meltdown of one of the reactors forced the evacuation of the residents after radioactive gas escaped into the atmosphere.
February 11, 1981

Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.
April 25, 1981

Officials said around 45 workers were exposed to radioactivity during repairs to a plant at Tsuruga, Japan.
April 26, 1986

The world's worst nuclear accident occurred after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It released radiation over much of Europe. Thirty-one people died iin the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Hundreds of thousands of residents were moved from the area and a similar number are belived to have suffered from the effects of radiation exposure.
March 24, 1992

At the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg, Russia, radioactive iodine escaped into the atmosphere. A loss of pressure in a reactor channel was the source of the accident.
November 1992

In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.
November 1995

Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system.
March 1997

The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.
September 30, 1999

Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction.

Sorry just had to post these...the european ones should interest you kieken...
Kath

[Kieken]

After the war he admitted that the bombing was an act of unresponsible destruction. This bombing simply did not change the way the war was going. I've got the quote in front of me but in Dutch. I'll search for an English one.

Anyway, yep, brilliant guy. Didn't know that those spheres were from the same guy.

EDIT: forgot the quote



EDIT 2: just found out that some Dutch organisation published it.

[GrampianStars]

MARALINGA
Plutonium and uranium fallout from 15 nuclear tests conducted
by the British government between 1961 and 1963 contaminated Maralinga SA. Twisted Evil

Seven atomic bombs were exploded at Maralinga;
perhaps 25% to 30% of the plutonium in those devices would have been fissioned.
The remainder would have been spread around the ground zeroes, or carried into the air to be deposited later as fallout.
Many development trials were also conducted at three sites within Maralinga — Taranaki, TM, and Wewak.
Those at the two latter sites resulted in plutonium spread over relatively small areas but a series of trials at Taranaki, code named Vixen B, were much more damaging.

There were 15 Vixen B trials;
all conducted in the period from 1961 to 1963.
In twelve of the tests, both plutonium and uranium were in the radioactive mix; the other three contained only uranium. In each trial, a nuclear device was placed on a large steel structure known as a featherbed, erected on a concrete firing pad.
The device was detonated in a manner that prevented a nuclear explosion. The heat of the explosion melted the plutonium and uranium and shot radioactive debris up to 1,000 meters into the air, where it was caught by the wind and spread far and wide.

Maralinga is not suitable for permanent occupation;
and 450 km2 is encircled by boundary markers to remind Australians that this is so.

The boundary markers might have a life of 50 years, but half of the plutonium will still be there in 24,000 years.
simply buried in shallow pits instead of disposal of waste in a deep geological rift / chamber.

Whoever accepts responsibility for the site should recognize that they will have to rely for several thousand years on assurances from a government
yeah right Evil or Very Mad

[wraithe]

statement from the world nuclear association....
To reconcile global human need and environmental preservation, our world needs nuclear power.
“There is no sensible alternative to nuclear power if we are to sustain civilization.”
- James Lovelock, preeminent world leader in the development of environmental consciousness

http://www.world-nuclear.org/

good propaganda hey...
no sensible alternative...mmm...makes you wonder what drugs this guy is on....

[wraithe]

France, 2001

In July 2001, police seized several grams of highly enriched uranium and arrested three suspects in Paris, France. According to preliminary reports, the enrichment level was about 80 percent, but results of laboratory analysis have not yet been reported to the IAEA. One of the suspects had recently completed a prison sentence for fraud charges, and the other two reportedly were citizens of Cameroon. According to one press account, French police found the material encased in a glass bulb that was stored in a lead cylinder.

[wraithe]

plenty more thefts of nuclear fuel...


Tengen, Germany, 1994

In May 1994, German police discovered a lead container containing 0.006 kilograms of highly concentrated plutonium-239 in the home of a German citizen. The material found in the container was a mixture of many components, including aluminum, silicon, mercury, zirconium, broken glass, and brush bristles as well as the plutonium. The presence of mercury in the mixture suggests that the material may have been used as part of a red mercury scam. 5 In November 1995, the German national was sentenced to 2-1/2 years in prison for violating arms control laws. The sentence was added onto a 3-year term he was already serving time for counterfeiting.
Landshut, Germany, 1994

In June 1994, less than 0.001 kilogram of highly enriched uranium was recovered in Landshut, Germany, a city near Munich. This material, along with 120 low enriched uranium fuel pellets, was found as a result of a police undercover operation. The material was seized in an undercover police operation. Three individuals apprehended were citizens of the Slovak Republic and one was a resident of Germany. A German court sentenced several of the individuals to probationary terms but one of the group’s leaders was sentenced to 2 years in prison.
Munich, Germany, 1994

In 1994, undercover German police acting as prospective buyers intercepted approximately 0.4 kilograms of plutonium at the Munich Airport. It is believed that the material originated in Russia’s Institute of Physics and Power Engineering. The institute, which is operated by Russia’s Ministry of Atomic Energy, is involved in the research and development of nuclear power reactors and possesses several tons of weapons-usable material. The material was in a suitcase that had arrived on a flight from Moscow. The individuals involved in the smuggling case were from Colombia and Spain. A German court sentenced the Colombian national to almost 5 years in prison and the Spanish nationals received prison sentences of between 3 and 4 years. All of the individuals were expelled from Germany after serving half of their sentences. By February 1996, Russian authorities had arrested several Russian accomplices, including a key figure involved in the theft of the material from the institute.
Prague, Czech Republic, 1994

In December 1994, police in Prague, Czech Republic, seized approximately 2.7 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. The material is believed to have been stolen from the Russian Institute of Physics and Power Engineering. The individuals involved included a Tajikistan national, a former Russian nuclear institute worker, and at least one Czech national. The material was brought into the Czech Republic on a train and then hidden for about 6 months while the individuals involved tried to sell it. They were arrested after Czech authorities received an anonymous tip and a Czech judge gave several members of the group prison sentences ranging from about 18 months to 8 years. Two related incidents were reported in June 1995 and involved the seizure of highly enriched uranium in the Czech Republic. According to available information, the composition of the material and its location were linked to the 1994 Prague and Landshut incidents. In both instances, the small quantities of material involved indicated that it was a sample that could be used to attract a potential buyer.
Rousse, Bulgaria, 1999

In May 1999, Bulgarian customs officials at the Rousse border checkpoint seized a vial containing about 0.004 kilograms of highly enriched uranium on the Bulgarian/Romanian border. Rousse is a city that serves as Bulgaria’s principal river port and is a transportation hub for road and rail traffic. The material was hidden in a shielded (lead) container inside the trunk of a car being driven by a Turkish citizen. The driver attempted to sell the material first in Turkey and then traveled through Bulgaria on his way to Romania, where he planned to find a buyer. A Bulgarian customs agent, using standard profiling techniques, suspected that the driver was a smuggler. A search of the driver’s papers revealed a document describing uranium. When the driver attempted to bribe the customs officer, his car was thoroughly inspected and the officer eventually discovered the vial containing the weapons-usable nuclear material. Bulgarian scientists concluded that the material was highly enriched uranium. Although the source of the material is not certain, it is probable that it came from the Mayak Production Association in Russia. This large complex produces special isotopes used for industrial, agricultural, and medical purposes and also reprocesses naval and civil nuclear power reactor fuel for plutonium and uranium recovery.
Kara-Balta, Kyrgyzstan, 1999

In October 1999, two persons were arrested in the act of selling a small metallic disk containing 0.0015 kilograms of plutonium. The item was analyzed by the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Kazakhstan and the two individuals arrested were convicted and sentenced to prison.
Batumi, Georgia, 2000

In April 2000, Georgian police arrested four persons in Batumi, Georgia, for unauthorized possession of 0.9 kilogram of highly enriched uranium fuel pellets. Batumi is a seashore resort at the Black Sea located along the Georgia-Turkey border. According to one press report, the material may have been smuggled from Russia. The pellets mass and shape, together with the reported enrichment level, suggest that the pellets were produced for use in a commercial or experimental fast breeder reactor. Another report also stated that the smugglers were detected when they crossed the Russian border into Georgia, possibly by radiation monitoring equipment and were then trailed to the city of Batumi, where they were apprehended. It is believed that the individuals were trying to smuggle the material into Turkey.
Tbilisi, Georgia, 2000

In September 2000, three persons were arrested at Tbilisi airport for attempting to sell a small quantity of mixed powder containing about 0.0004 kilograms of plutonium and 0.0008 kilograms of low enriched uranium, as well as a 0.002 kilogram sample of natural uranium. According to press reports, an official in the Georgian Ministry of State Security said that two individuals arrested were Georgian citizens, and the third was from Armenia. The individuals said they had brought the uranium and plutonium from Russia and Ukraine to sell it.
Germany, 2000

In December 2000, a worker at a closed spent fuel reprocessing plant removed radioactively contaminated items from the facility, deliberately evading radiation safety monitors. The contaminated items, described as rags and a test tube filled with aging waste material, contained a very minute amount of plutonium.
Greece, 2001

In January 2001, police found a cache of about 300 metallic plates buried in a forest in northern Greece. The material in the plates was determined to be plutonium and a radioactive source known as americium. According to one report, the material had been smuggled into Greece either from one of the countries of the former Soviet Union or Bulgaria. Each plate contained a small quantity of plutonium but the total amount was about 0.003 kilograms. An official from Greece’s atomic energy commission said that the quantity of nuclear material found was insufficient to build a nuclear weapon but the material posed a health hazard. A law enforcement officer speculated that the individuals who buried the metal plates were probably waiting for a potential buyer.

[wraithe]

Lop Nur Test Fallout Pattern

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Maps/Images/LopNorFallout.jpg Each number represents the location of the cloud per day

Daily observations of the cloud of radioactive dust particles after a Chinese test at Lop Nur on May 9, 1966. The cloud moved about 1,400 miles per day.

[Kieken]

When I look at it you've got every 2~3 years something at a plant.

Before the incident in Pennsylvania you've got 8 incidents of which 3 were experiments (and 3 people died), 1 was in a sub and one was in a plant were plutonium was produced (to my knowledge this would be for weapons). So basically 3 would have been normal plants (no experiments, nothing military).

After Pennsylvania you've got 1 serious incident (Tchernobyl), one accident with a prototype => experiment, 2 were caused by a human error (not wearing protective clothes and using to much uranium when mixing stuff). So since Tchernobyl was a normal plant you've got 5 incidents with normal plants without it being a human error or experiment.

The total is 9 incidents with normal nuclear plants in almost 55 years that are not created by a human error, by an experiment or because it was military. Every incident before 1990 was probably with an old reactor. Even later I doubt that the incidents were with new stuff. Anyway, 3 with let us say newer equipment.

When I look at it like this it's even safer then having babies. Every year 600.000 women die during labour.

EDIT: 90% of al radioactive material is stolen in Russia. Why? Because there is no money overthere to control it all.

Still, we were talking about nuclear energy. We're going way off-topic since were heading towards the dangers of every nuclear device ever made. As I stated before, nuclear weapons are a not done, nuclear energy however.

[Argonavis]

blah blah etc

what does this supposedly prove? every industry has industrial accidents - is the nuclear industry better or worse than any other? please explain....

using giant coal loaders and drag lines is not exactly risk free

chemical factories and refineries are not exactly risk free, and if you knew how volatile those LPG tankers are..well there is a town in France that no longer exists, and I stay well clear of them on the road, as if it helps.

my point is all technology has risks, including nuclear. Our society puts up with this to get the benefits, and I suspect the opposition to nuclear is based on superstition and misinformation rather than a rational assessment. There seems a lot of hysteria in this space.

[wraithe]

it might be fine if it just effected the area it is in but it dont...when you have any accident with nuclear, it cant be controlled to a control area...yes we do a lot of dangerous things but dont be an ostrich because someone else uses it..fallout from weapons testing is no different to any release of radiation...it travels...i bet the alaskans where not happy with the chinese testing(or did no one tell them)...

mind you it only shows 12 days of drift...how long did it stay in the atmosphere before completely falling to earth...oh yeh, thats one weapons test...how about the 3 mile island and chernobyl..didnt just effect northern hemesphere...
or do you think it just stays put...i think people need to consider everybody...and russian thefts, well that shows what happens when a country falls into turmoil...are any of you under the false belief that this country or any other are so stable that a russia cant happen....
no point closing the gate after the horse has bolted...is there...

[Kieken]

Unless you have a cattle of 100 horses, then it's better to close it, not?

In Russia they have still has a lot of radioactive material that is still where it should be. If we coöperate and secure it everything would be a lot safer.

[ving]

we arent talking about creating power with new-killer weapons.. you are talking about old technology.... chernobyl needs to struck from the conversation as the technology is now well over 50 years old. we didnt know much about new-killer power at the time, now we do :)

signed
devils advocate

[acropolite]

Four nuclear accidents (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1664190.htm)in 1 week and at least part of the Lucas heights operation closed. Nuff said... :atom:

[fringe_dweller]

was anyone seriously hurt? (how many people die working on conventional power plants and in all industries in fact - I know lately theres been quite a lot of industrial/mining accidents - maybe we should halt all dangerous work around the country immediatly?) after all these years of one accident a month - how many have died? doesnt this nuclear research facility produce all the hospital/medical radioactive materials needs of Australia - that saves how many lives a year!!??, thats right doesnt radiation actually save lives in this country, xrays ect.?? - this so-called evil on earth personafied.
I think its far from 'enuff said' on this subject
anyway funny timing eh LOL sabotage? i wouldnt put anything past the anti-nukers - their desperate!

[fringe_dweller]

Ian - as for fragile desert eco-systems, we dont seem to have any trouble about digging up great swathes of these arid regions? mining produces how many permenant toxic chemicals as it goes? and grazing cattle and sheep on it, but we cant dump nuke waste there, I am getting really confused now!

[gaa_ian]

Certainly people still get injured & even killed in industry, something that those of us in industry work hard to prevent, but one thing that is apparent is that most accidents don't just "happen", they are caused by "human error", people cut corners to "get the job done".
If this happens with conventional industry there can be Immediate health & environmental consequences, perhaps even for years to come.
With the nuclear accidents, these are likely to affect your childrens,childrens,childrens,child rens,childrens,childrens,childrens, childrens,childrens,childrens,child rens,...... children.
I think I am happier to stick with the risks of conventional power & industry, the risk they present can be "controlled", and that is what it is all about, controlling risk.
Industry today works on a risk matrix of Likelyhood vs Consequences.
Even if the likelyhood of a "catastrophic" event is "Rare", you still dont do it, you go and find another way !
That is the approach we should take to nuclear energy, as a mass energy source, IMHO !

[acropolite]

We don't know what the consequences of the leaks or spills were. Sure as eggs, if it's serious, we won't be told, but it goes to show accidents do happen, even in Australia. As for one of the workers at the facility or an anti nuker deliberately sabotaging the facility, that's a rediculous statement. Another issue is that the materials being handled for medical purposes at Lucas Heights are relatively harmless, unlike the high level radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants.

[ving]

why? are you saying that sabotage doesnt happen? people dont plant bombs in buildings? or on a much much smaller scale, bosses dont set up employees they dont like to fail by giving them a task they cant complete (seen that happen so often). sabotage happens and theres no reeason to believe that sabotage may be the cause of at least some of the problems at lucas hieghts... the truth is we just dont know! :)

[wraithe]

old technology......give it 30 years and we all willl be regarded as using old technology...industrial accidents do happen, and so do nuclear accidents....thats the whole thing, they do happen so why indulge in something that could be potentially fatal the surrounding area, and leave a scar on our country...lucas heights is enough...why provide more evidence for the future, to say we where so nieve that we did not try to provide power without using such dangerous methods...do you really think that the nuclear power builders and advocates would give you all the details about the safety of these power plants...(i hope you dont think that way)... Solar towers have risks, if your in the area of the tower under the heat surface, you could die from burns, but the power tower will still only burn the individual there...if it fell over then it would only effect the people in that vicinity, but it wouldnt kill people on another continent...or 200 miles away...nuclear accidents have far reaching concequences...

[mickoking]

Strewth this thread is still going ;)

My final summary on this issue is that Australia does not need nuclear power and to be blunt I believe most Aussies don't want it either. I certainly don't want to see Australia to be a dump for the worlds nuclear waste, We are surely better than the worlds rubbish tip :shrug: Also accepting the worlds nuclear waste will just lead to more nuclear power being set up and creating yet more waste that we will have to manage for HUNDREDS of generations to come.

Like oil the reserves of uranium are finite. If we don't investigate alternative and renewable energy seriously we will encounter problems when the uranium reserves dry up.

Decommisioning old nuclear power stations is an expensive and messy affair and the electricity generated by nuclear power is also more expensive than the current electricity we consume.

Nuclear power would probably only have a minimal effect on the reduction of green house gasses and nuke generation has its own un desirable emmisions.

The task forse set up by Johnny H is pro nuke. According to the wisdom of Yes Minister a government doesn't set up an enquiry like this if it doesn't know the outcome in advance ;) Our government are a bunch of ideoalogues and their ideology is primarally 'Money + following GW Bush' . Nuclear power is not about solving any problems its about making money in the right quaters, for the right people.

Thats my say, thanx for listening to my rant :lol:

Cheers :cheers: Mick

[wraithe]

well said Mick, and so true...why do it if not for profit....

[fringe_dweller]

are you aware that huge amounts of asbestos was used in the building coal fired power plants, particularly their chimney stacks? - in fact many maintenance workers and their families (i believe the effects of asbestos can be passed on genetically as well) have died as a result of their simply earning a living in these places - there was some deaths just recently in SA, how much is the clean up costs of decommisioning one of these plants?
Nobody seems to care unless the deaths and contamination are caused by nuke power.
Ving - i agree their is unimited supply of unscrupulous employers and bosses out there - I know someone in retail who was set up for a very serious robbery simply because for years, she was the only employee that informed the other workers that they had had pay/award rises that the employers (small retail shop) had continually and illegally failed to pass on - one time it was a full year they had let it slip by - and they had to back pay everyone for the year -this was enough for them to crack and set her up - and no doubt pocket the money and the insurance I would expect - probably to offset their losses due to pay rises, for goodness sakes they had yatches, holiday homes ect. to pay for, the poor things! these particular employers were notorious throughout their industry as viscous nutters, and had a history of viscous attacks on employees ie sample: sacked a faithfull reliable perfect 55 yo female employee that had been with them 20 years and was going to retire anyway in just a few years, for some trumped up lame reason, just so they didnt have to pay their pro rata! she would never get a job again easily at her age either.

[fringe_dweller]

so you think nuke power is the only source of nuke pollution?

some quotes from this webpage

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

'Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations.'

'The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.'

'Generally, the amount of thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of uranium.'

'Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.'

[fringe_dweller]

more some good stuff here
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/whyu.htm
more on coal fired plants
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp

[fringe_dweller]

I cant find the quote now from the many webpages i found, but a another interesting point about coal is, given the kg to kg energy diff to nuke, does anyone take into account the unbelievably massive amount of fossil fuels used to transport via gigantic ships around the globe, the coal to countries of destination? when you factor this into coal - it doesnt look good for coal exports

[wraithe]

why use either of them....use the safer alternatives...nobody died from utilising the sun...maybe from sun exposure but we cant stop the sun, but we can use it...unless there is a reason why you think we should not use something that is harmless to our environment, and we dont control or companies cant charge a premium for....

[acropolite]

For those interested here is some relevant info from this source (http://www.ccsa.asn.au/nic/UMining/shame2.htm)

Nuclear Power and the Environment
Nuclear power has at least as much environmental impact as electricity production from fossil fuels. Every step in mining, processing, fabricating and using uranium to decommissioning of nuclear power stations and nuclear waste disposal is associated with high emissions of nuclear radiation, which is at least as dangerous as emissions associated with electricity from fossil fuels.
The mining and processing of uranium, its enrichment to make fuel, the decommissioning of nuclear power stations, and the disposal of nuclear waste are energy intensive processes which consume large amounts of fossil fuels.
The largest single contributor to greenhouse emissions, other than electricity generation, in SA is the Olympic Dam project at Roxby Downs.
Nuclear power requires substantial areas of land for mining, milling, processing, conversion, enrichment, power stations, and waste disposal.
The mining, milling, processing, refining, and enrichment of uranium, the construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power stations and nuclear waste disposal pollute the atmosphere with radioactive gases.
At Roxby about 20,000 tonnes of ore must be mined and processed to produce one tonne of enriched uranium fuel for a nuclear power station.
Nuclear waste at Roxby is pumped into an unsealed dam from where the radioactive, toxic liquid is allowed to leak into the underlaying soil. Solids left behind will eventually cover 720 hectares to a height of 30 metres. This waste, which will remain radioactive for longer than known human habitation in Australia, will be covered with a layer of soil and rock.
At Beverley and Honeymoon, radioactive toxic liquid waste is being pumped into the underground water.
The shallow burial nuclear waste repository proposed by the Federal Government for the north of SA will be used to store low-level radioactive waste. It will also be used to store medium-level nuclear waste, which will remain radioactive for longer than Europeans have occupied Australia.
Australia generates high-level nuclear waste, in the form of spent fuel rods. These fuel rods come from the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights near Sydney. The Australian Government plans to build another, larger nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. This reactor will increase the rate of generation of high, medium and low level nuclear waste.
Sweden has purpose-built facilities for deep, retrievable storage of nuclear waste. By comparison with Sweden, countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Japan and the USA make much larger quantities of nuclear waste. None of these countries has facilities comparable to Sweden.

[fringe_dweller]

I cant take these presently minnows of energy seriously yet, how do you create power from solar when the sun goes down and when its cloudy? store up solar energy in dirty filthy enviroment destroying, land fill filling lead/mercury batteries? - they will have their day perhaps?, it hasnt arrived yet i'm afraid - Why go for a reliable and dependable energy source? I think a picture is better than a thousand words - I like this one off the previous website

[fringe_dweller]

Phil that is from a greenies propoganda website, i'm sorry not interested, i already have had their lets all live in caves, eat lentils and ride pushbikes (maybe their already rich and financially well off - but theres new people coming through all the time that arent of course, wheres the next lot of revenue coming from?) shrill propoganda drilled into me for years now, I think I can almost quote it from memory now. Not one mention of sources of figures and facts, typical!

'The largest single contributor to greenhouse emissions, other than electricity generation, in SA is the Olympic Dam project at Roxby Downs.
Nuclear power requires substantial areas of land for mining, milling, processing, conversion, enrichment, power stations, and waste disposal.'

well duh! it also provides the same amount proportionally or more of revenue and work for tens of thousands of south australians, directly and indirectly, and indeed all australians (better check your super investment portfolio's you may be making money off these mines! and you will consequentially go to evengelical militant greenie hell when you die)
whats happening at those coal mines in qld - wheres the wave of hysteria and outcry over coal and the mining/exporting of, and pollution created doing so? strange, just deathly silence in this area?
Frankly, myself, and I am sure many south aussies, just see a lot this anti nuke sentiment as more pure east coast centric anti-south australianism. After all these years of it, it is getting hard differentiate when it is or isnt, ie I remember one east coast federal politician loudly proclaiming in the media years ago at election time SA just shouldnt exist, I think it was something to do with us complaining about the murray was reduced to a trickle at our end or the state carve up of GST or whatever, that went down very well here i can tell you.
- tell you what, let all the states just split/secede into our own little countries and go our own way (dont forget all the little regions within the states that want to secede and form their own little countries as well!) , forget about australia 'the country' it was a quaint idea while it lasted.