How to make Nuclear Power safer

[xelasnave]

I think nuclear power although currently expensive will one day be an option we will need
Given the problems we have experienced how do we make reactors safer?
Miles from anything built under a lake or what
Any ideas given we need to embrace this technology
Alex

[Amaranthus]

Easier answer - rely on passive (inherent) safety systems that depend on the laws of physics rather than engineered intervention. Then reactors become "walk away" safe.

You can read about it (e.g. the Integral Fast Reactor) on my blog -- this Q&A/FAQ is a really good start:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/18/ifr-fad-7/

[xelasnave]

Thanks for that
I have been to your blog at some stage must have missed it
Anyways I shall take a look

[xelasnave]

Very interesting and encouraging
But I am I correct could put off mining for years

[pluto]

That's a good read Barry.
I'm also interested to see the next generation of Thorium reactors as they have the potential to be very clean and, most importantly, very safe.

IMO it's a shame that public debate about the future of nuclear power generation usually assumes that the type of reactor that would be built would be based on old cold-war technology and is generally ignorant of technology that has been designed for safe power production as opposed to weapon fuel production.

[multiweb]

Nuclear fusion. Maybe not within our lifetime. There is ITER (http://www.iter.org/mach)which should answer a few questions soon enough but it's cost a bundle to date.

[acropolite]

IMO Nuclear power isn't an option, there's no such thing as a safe nuclear reactor (on this planet at least) and no real need for one. By implementing nuclear power we're only prolonging the inevitable, we're already living beyond our means and destroying our habitat in the process.

Renewables are the only sustainable future, the expectation of continuous growth has to go. Take a trip to Denmark or Germany and see the proliferation of wind and solar, they at least have the sense to decommission their ageing nuclear capacity and build sustainable infrastructure.

[multiweb]

Problem is energy produced by unit of surface. Wind and Solar as all renewables have an efficiency of bugger-all. It's all simple high school maths. Would be great if it worked though. Germany is the biggest power consumer in the EU and what's not coming from coal comes from Nuclear.

[pluto]

I'm a huge fan of renewable energy sources, especially solar combined with some clever storage, but I think there is room to consider other clean options.

Would you mind explaining what you think is unsafe about a liquid fluoride thorium reactor?
I'm not being cheeky, I promise, I'm genuinely interested as, from my limited understanding of them, LFTRs are by design unable to have a runaway reaction (or as Mr Burns put it: an unrequested fission surplus), and they produce very little waste.

[Amaranthus]

Phil, by that logic there is no such thing as a safe ANYTHING, including solar panels, wind turbines etc. In fact, more people are killed falling off roofs installing or cleaning PV panels each year than have ever been killed by commercial nuclear power.

The key point here is not that solar PV is not 'safe' (it is), it is simply that all risk comparisons are relative, NOT absolute as your statement implies.

[Amaranthus]

Hugh, yes, that is what I meant when I referred to inherent safety. The LFTR has many inherent safety properties, and so does the IFR (with metal fuel and liquid metal coolant) -- both of these are "Generation IV" designs that emphasize this aspect of design, along with fuel sustainability.

Even the latest Gen III+ reactors like the AP1000 have partly inherently safe systems -- better here termed 'passive' safety, such as gravity-and-convection fed emergency cooling water systems that do not require powered pumps to operate (the Achilles Heel of the old Fukushima reactors during the station blackout).

[tlgerdes]

Cars fit into that same category then, they are not safe as they can be driven by idiots (I neither confirm nor deny that I fit into that category :lol:)

The current deployed technology of nuclear power has potential problems, but if you were to design and build a new version, you can mitigate or possibly eliminate all catastrophic problems.

[Camelopardalis]

There are many countries - France, Germany, the UK, and the US for example - that have operated nuclear facilities very safely for many decades at this point, regardless of these design flaws. Incidents occur when humans do stupid things. Just like in cars :lol:

[el_draco]

In large part I agree but there are designs that default to stable and that's an option that is worth exploring. I noticed today an enorous solar farm came online in NSW, bigger to come. Australia certainly has the potential to win big time in this area. Need a bit a vision in Aus.

[el_draco]

Ah yes, but badly designed cars certainly aid in the process of winning Darwin awards...;)

[AndrewJ]

There is no money in cleaning up after you have made your profit.

What i think will be very interesting with nuclear power is how the "utilities" that own them and make money "now" will behave when they have to be decommissioned. Even if there is no accident along the way, the costs of dealing with radioctive waste wont be cheap, and i'll bet some operators will declare bankruptcy and/or run for the hills, just like happened with asbestos when the true costs came out.

Andrew

[el_draco]

Good point. I always thought a mass accelerator was the way to go with nuclear waste. I mean, launch it at high velocity straight at sol... not even a burp.... Start up costs would be a beach though.

[JB80]

My wife was offered a job there last year, it would of been a very eye opening experience but unfortunately it couldn't compete with what was offered in Spain.

[PeterEde]

Nuclear power is today the safest form of power. Energy cycles from mining power out put Nuclear is by far the least dangerous killing less than every other form of power

[tlgerdes]

And so to with badly designed "anything" :)

[squeak]

i am disappointed ,but not surprised ,that the reduction of energy consumption is not addressed at any level. our children are learning about shogunate japan, but not a peep about reducing consumption so our species has the best chance of survival. not from federal , state , or local govt. the3 mantra seems to be , " more energy cheaper " . i suspect that if we used the energy that we need, as opposed to wasting energy hand over fist and whingeing about the bill ,then coal and renewables could co-exist with reduced co2 output. but the job figures would look shocking. so , no surprises there. im not against nuclear power ,just old tech ,built by the lowest bidder , with humans as part of emergency failsafe shutdown procedures . the new gen reactors appear much better all round.

[el_draco]

Again, the issue isn't really the amount of power generated its the growth in population. We generate huge amounts of power but it will NEVER be enough while population and demand continue to increase.

There is ONE MP who has been challenging conventional stupidity in the twit pit for some time. His name is Kelvin Thomson. Attached, the response from Hunt to a question about population growth today in the twit pit. In summary, "dont have brain capacity to answer your question so I'll B.S. my head off"

[multiweb]

Both those guys were probably on their lunch break when the primary school teacher was reviewing additions.

[TrevorW]

Put a copper coil around the earth :question:

[PeterEde]

Even Bindy Irwin gets it. People want a clean environment. That's a great goal and one we should strive for but not at the cost of our economy.
Seems no government wants to tackle the biggest problem the planet and humanity faces and that is over population.
We live on a planet with finite resources. Fortunately for Australia we have them in abundance. Unfortunately for us one day someone else is going to want them.
Power consumption is directly related to population growth. Solar is obviously the most abundant source of free energy. Molten salt solar does seem the way to go but along side nuclear for the dark days when the sun don't shine.
Country's look at power requirements with a narrow POV. Solar fails when a country is networked. Why not network the planet. Then no matter what time of day some plants some where are generating power.
But again it comes down to spending money.
Now I'd be happy to have the government hand over 10 billion if every country chipped in to create a global SOLAR power grid.
Stop the fanciful wind turbines that create an eyesore on our great landscape and cost more to build and operate then they will ever generate.

[Amaranthus]

Correct, provide you mean inversely related. The greater the access to electricity (or primary energy), the lower the birth rate (and population growth rate). The data, across country after country, do not lie, as GapMinder can easily reveal: http://goo.gl/e0r2YM

[el_draco]

That's a really interesting graph and supports your statement but I wonder whether there are underlying factors, like the cost of power increasing with affluence, Decrease in fertility linked to increased toxicity in the environment in affluent countries, (lots of data on that) and some other potential candidates as well. For instance, I reckon West African power consumption will fall in line with the spread of Ebola; fewer people and they'll all be saying, "Don't you come within 20m of me"; hence, lower birth rate :rolleyes:

[Camelopardalis]

It's selection pressure. Those of us with electricity don't feel like our existence and thus ability to procreate is as threatened, and therefore we're not as inclined to constantly reproduce to ensure we have a future lineage. We rest easy on a sunny Saturday morning with our cup of coffee on the knowledge that, if necessary, we can be reproducing on Sunday morning :lol:

[avandonk]

Correlation is not causation!

The single real factor in birth rate control is the education level of women. The higher the education level the lower the birth rate.

Nuclear Power is a total furphy. It is even more polluting than fossil fuel power.

If all the Earth's electricity power needs were supplied by nuclear power the U235 fuel would barely last thirty years.

All the other hair brained 'breeder reactors' etc are just that hare brained.

The real truth is if we do not leave 80% of the current fossil fuel reserves in the ground where they belong the Earth will stop sustaining us due to catastrophic climate change.

I honestly do not care what you all do as I will be dead soon. But like all of you I have children and grandchildren.

Bert

[el_draco]

Scary concept..... One I most definitely DO NOT subscribe to... ;)

[el_draco]

Well said Bert, Hopefully the later will not occur to soon, (I admire your imaging immensely :)), but your statement is the blunt truth that few seem to acknowledge and even fewer are prepared to act on... at the moment. :shrug:

[Amaranthus]

Hardly a logically compelling argument against nuclear fuel recycling, Bert.

[clive milne]

Correct... and I am surprised more people didn't see the specious nature of the correlation that Barry referenced. To put it concisely; it is true that societies with high population growth use less energy per capita than developed countries. However, the growth in their energy consumption is directly proportional to their population growth which is the opposite of what was implicit in his post.

I also agree with your statements with respect to nuclear power. Thorium cycle reactors cannot address the underlying issues that face us. Irrespective of the hype surrounding the idea, they offer marginal benefits in exchange for a new raft of (significant) reprocessing challenges which make them as dangerous as the old technology. They are easily reconfigured to enable the production of fissile material and the thorium fuel cycle is immature. Estimates from the UK’s National*Nuclear Laboratory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences suggest that 10-15 years of research will be needed before thorium fuels are ready to be deployed in existing reactor designs. Production LFTRs will not be deployable on any significant scale for 40-70 years.*
The bottom line is that it is almost a certainty that we will reach the point where natural climate feedback loops will be of a magnitude greater than a gain of 1x, at which time it doesn't matter what we do. We collectively abdicate from the position of drivers seat to a passenger in a train wreck.

The talk of managing a viable economy in such a circumstance is laughable. If we reach the point where the biosphere of this planet collapses, there won't be anything left resembling an economy.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Clive


Yes there will,
and Mr Cohagen will be at the top of it.;)

Andrew

[avandonk]

If you want the full argument I am willing to post it here. I am only a lowly physicist.

Nuclear fuel recycling is about as valid a concept as clean coal.

It is a load of drivel promulgated by vested interests.

One simple question. Would you like to live near a nuclear fuel recycling plant?

The simple reality is nearly all nuclear power stations are there to produce Plutonium for Nuclear weapons.


Bert

[avandonk]

The real reason why both the US and the USSR got rid of thousands of nuclear warheads was that they could not maintain them!

Tritium has a short half-life. This is needed for the trigger that makes the bomb have more yield! IE killing power. They are not the good guys. They are insane!

Bert

[PeterEde]

Then surely the best way to rid the planet of harmful radioactive materials like plutonium is to burn in a reactor. 97% of a spent fuel rod is still usable fuel. Why not burn it in a 2nd reactor until it's spent?
There's quiet a bit online worth reading about nuclear fuel cycle. Saving up spent fuel for later use is why Australia will never be a dumping gnd.

[Amaranthus]

Fuel recycling in metal-fueled fast reactors like the IFR is ready now - MSR reactors with fluid fuels (e.g. dissolved thorium) needs more R&D.

I'd be happy to entertain your arguments about this Bert - I've likely heard them all before, on numerous occasions. Your view sounds rather shallow on this matter (no offense intended).

[PeterEde]

I find a lot of anti nuclear people have a limited view. Not to take anything from Berts qualifications and I'm by no means a physicist. The old throw away line of look at chernobyl and Fukushima are tired and irrelevant.
As for living next to a reactor? I grew up in a heavily industrialised part of Adelaide. People in the area already have high instances of cancer or other medical issues. Living next door to a nuclear plant would have me exposed to no more radiation than sitting in front of a CRT tv. Which we all did for 30 plus years. I worked at Roxby Downs for 5 years (above gnd) but in the nuclear cycle. So not a complete numpty when it comes to nuclear issues.
Unlike many anti nuclear people who just keep rolling out the same 2 arguments and nothing more, I do actually research the issues.
Hence the nuclear fuel cycle kills .04 people per terrawatt the lowest death rate of any fuel cycle. There is no argument when stats like this are out there.

[avandonk]

Can you show me the full conversion of fuel to by products including all radioactive by products and neutron emission with energies.

Even the so called clean fusion reactors have a major problem. High energy high neutron flux. This not only makes the reactor vessel weaken over time it also makes it highly radioactive. Even the exotic metals will fail!

No offense intended but I find this all specious as you are defending the indefensible.


Bert

[Amaranthus]

Yes Bert, the complete proportional mix of actinides and fission products can be readily calculated, and as the half lives (and energies of the decay particles/rays, be they alpha, beta or gamma) of all of these radioisotopes are known precisely, the integrated radiotoxicity for any future time period can be calculated. Fuel recycling separates the actinides (in a hot mixed batch of Pu, U and the MA), and this is used to create fresh metal fuel. The residual batch of FP has a short aggregate HL/radiotoxicity.

Your 3rd paragraph is again one without substance, so is by default inarguable.

[avandonk]

I am aware of all other pollution sources. The nuclear industry will leave it's legacy around for hundreds thousands of years. People in the future will have no way of knowing what poisons are in their environment. At least chemical pollution will no longer be there.

If you really want to get scared. Small particle pollution (>2 micron) is the major cause of Autism and many other brain dysfunctions. It affects embryo growth after being ingested by the mother.


Where does this pollution come from? Diesel and petrol driven vehicles. You can make up the rest.

Bert

[avandonk]

Sounds really good to me. So you know exactly what radio nucleotides you are playing with. That is really reassuring!

Just do not spill the pudding!

Bert

[Amaranthus]

Recycled fuel leaves only fission products that decay to below background radiation levels in a few centuries, not hundreds of thousands of years.

Yes, one can measure and calculate precisely the composition of fuel that comes out of a reactor. I suggest you read the book "Plentiful Energy" by Till & Chang to find out more, including a detailed description of the pyro processing constituents (chemical composition and radioisotope mix)

If you want a broader overview, maybe watch this video I did recently in Canberra at the National Library - I'm the panelist on the far right:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/07/nuclear-energy-the-debate-australia-has-to-have/

[avandonk]

A few centuries is really reassuring. That means if JC had used your technology his waste would now be safe.


I will quantify this statement by showing you the many people who have died due to pollution that does not last this long in the environment.

Not enough room!


Bert

[Amaranthus]

And so the evidence ceases and the insults begin. Enough for this thread

[avandonk]

You did not answer the fact that the neutron flux makes any reactor vessel radioactive for thousands of years.

Run away by all means.

Maybe I should have said that you were talking gibberish. My comment was because you believe the drivel that you propound.

It was a totally justified value judgment.

I believe in evidence based argument. Not drivel that has no basis in reality.

Bert

[avandonk]

Before some person complains can I just say I am so sorry for being a really bad person. I just do not know why I do this. I must be insane when other idiots disagree with me. Again I am so sorry for being me!

Bert :-)

[PeterEde]

This is all good reading. From what I read recently this has all been hushed up since Carter was president. "They" didn't want the world to know they had cured the issue of radioactive decay. Using the 2 types of reactors again "They" say by the end of the cycle the spent fuel rods will have negligible (by what measure?) residual radiation and you could sleep on them. What I've read from a "nuclear physicist" involved.

[PeterEde]

Why is it one person is allowed an opinion and all others with differing opinions are deemed idiots? Vote Green or Labor?

[clive milne]

Barry, in the lecture you posted one of your opening statements was that Australia has several hundred years of coal reserves. Was that assuming consumption at current rates?

[PeterEde]

Australia also has 1/4 of the worlds known uranium reserves.

[Amaranthus]

This is based on forecast future domestic coal consumption rates and even expanding export markets. In short, there is a LOT of coal left to extract, especially given improved recover methods and open-cut mining -- it just depends on what we are willing to pay for it. However, most of it, I hope, we will choose to leave in the ground due to better options...

[Camelopardalis]

I hope so too, it would be a shame to scar the Australian countryside with large pits when we can cover it with solar panels :) (I'm serious!)

But when it comes to being "green" the solution is to stop eating beef...cow farting causes much more damage to our atmosphere than using a sensibly economical car :D

[Amaranthus]

It's actually the belching, mostly, Dunk - another 'rural' myth :D

[Camelopardalis]

Well, I'm pretty certain I don't want to be near either end :lol:

[tlgerdes]

I value your opinions Bert as much as I value Barry's, but your insults belittle your integrity and have no place here.

[PeterEde]

Have you seen the foot print difference for equivalent terrawatts power generation between Solar and Nuclear?
I'd much rather a few hectare of nuke plant over the eyesore hundreds of hectares for solar or wind.
I hate with a passion the eyesores that are wind turbines. Blight on the great Australian landscape.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c019b00555b6d970b-pi

[Camelopardalis]

Each to their own...I don't mind windmills :D

But I'm not against nuclear either... the footprint issue is much less of a problem here, compared with more densely populated countries :P

For example, if we say consumption is 250TWh, then going by the figures in the linked article this requires:

16.73 km2 for nuclear (2 millionths of the land area)
5059 km2 for solar (6-7 10,000ths of land area)
9728 km2 for wind (1.2 thousandths of land area)


Wanted: 70 x 70 km plot of spare desert, sunny clime preferred :D

[sn1987a]

What about solar updraft towers or geothermal hot rocks?.

[Amaranthus]

1. Uneconomic 2. Not commercialised.

[sn1987a]

Fair enough, keep burning increasingly expensive to mine coal and building government/taxpayer insurer of last resort nuclear power stations then. :sadeyes:

[Amaranthus]

Build inherently safe nuclear power like the IFR (where safety systems rely on the laws of physics, as discussed at the start of this thread) -- if the whole world ran on these, there would be a TMI level incident ever 500,000 years or so. Insurance concerns become a moot point.

[clive milne]

I was curious to learn the extent of global uranium reserves. I was of the understanding that if global energy demand was serviced entirely by nuclear power we would have somewhere between 50 and 100 years before it ran out. I was surprised to read the claim that land based reserves are but a fraction of what is available. The uranium dissolved in the oceans could power us for 10's of thousands of years according to the claim but at double the extraction/processing cost. They further claim that this would increase the total energy generation cost by 5% above conventional nuclear power.
Personally I am of the opinion that it is utter foolishness to determine our national energy policy from an isolationist perspective when the problem can only be solved at a global level with all the deferred costs included in the equation. The reality is that we cannot burn anything more than a small fraction of our known fossil fuel reserves without incurring an unthinkable penalty later. In that context, the wholesale cost of energy derived from it is meaningless. I am ambivalent about nuclear mostly because I don't think it would be possible to put enough infrastructure on the ground in the time required. But I agree that if it is viable then the debate should be free of anti nuclear ideology.

[clive milne]

Double post please ignore

[sn1987a]

If power prices keep going up I'm going to go nuclear and instal solar PV, batteries and increase efficency and the power companies can go ...... themselves. I'm the customer and I'm always right. :D

[Amaranthus]

Clive, an great factoid: even given the amount of energy in already mined uranium (used nuclear fuel, dismantled weapons, depleted uranium tails) we have enough of a stockpile of fuel accumulated to run the whole world for about 500 years if using IFRs with full fuel recycling. We could cease all uranium mining for half a millennia. Amazing but true.

[Nikolas]

Thought I'd add balance to your absolutes.

[el_draco]

.... and I completely AGREE with you, ;) though grid connect is currently a better option than batteries.

[PeterEde]

Watch the video Barry posted. Very insightful.
I want nuclear for 2 reasons
1 it's clean
2 it's baseload

[clive milne]

I was of the understanding that the technical challenges associated with closing the fuel cycle had not been overcome yet?

Incidentally, I have just finished reading a book about South Africa's covert nuclear program (at the end of the apartheid era) I highly recommend it. The basic thrust of the investigation is that SA was for a time at the forefront of advanced nuclear weapon development with full knowledge of the other nuclear club members. The case is fairly convincingly made that they were successful in their quest to make fusion devices that didn't require a fissile trigger. Sam Cohen has previously acknowledged that the Soviets had done exactly the same thing. Without getting in to a discussion over the military implications, it would revolutionize the energy industry if it was ever let into the civilian domain. I suppose what it would imply to the global power balance would ensure that it is unlikely to ever happen.

[PeterEde]

According to what I read recently the cycle problem was sorted during Carters administration and hushed up. They didn't want the world to know they had discovered the "secret" to recycling spent fuel or warhead waste. Which allowed the US to stockpile spent fuel. This is the reason I feel Australia will never become the worlds dump.

[clive milne]

If the fuel cycle was closed, wouldn't the value of fuel basically drop to zero?

[Amaranthus]

Of mined uranium, yes. A 1GW reactor would then require just over a milk crate worth of fuel per year. And it could be recycled spent fuel or DU.

[Amaranthus]

Clive, the PRISM reactor for fuel recycling is ready to be built: http://gehitachiprism.com/what-is-prism/benefits-of-prism/

All the key R&D for pyroprocessing (hot electrorefining) of the fuel cycle was done at Argonne National Labs in the 1980s-1990s.

[el_draco]

One issue that should be considered, apart from the fact that the problem is population growth, rather than generation, is the method of supply. A lot of people are talking big complex systems here and they wont solve the problem. One way to make a real dent is to change the rationale. Instead of massive concentrated systems, why not go the other way and build small integrated systems for MOST power supply, like a distributed network similar to the internet. More robust, less complex, lots of efficiencies etc etc...:question:

[Amaranthus]

Interestingly Rom, the IFR is built around the SMR (small modular reactor) principle. Although still 'largeish' (at 310 MWe), some of the Gen IV SMR designs are in the 25-50 MWe range - the output of perhaps 10 large wind turbines (when they're running at full tilt, at least! :lol:)

[el_draco]

Maybe, but I prefer the old adage KISS.... :)

I'd do micro hydro, photovoltaic, wind, tide, biomass, geothermal etc etc in preference to even a small nuclear wherever possible.

Interesting story on the idiot box a while back talking about energy issues related to natural disasters which, will inevitably increase with climate change. The article looked at the impact of loss of power from super storm Sandy and the push for small scale systems in the area. Its a common theme and makes a lot of sense. :thumbsup:

[PeterEde]

Just finished watching the discussion. Very informative. A must see for anyone with an anti nuclear POV. Most are uneducated and just bleat on about Chernobyl and Fukushima with no real data to back up their stand.
Any real Greenie has to consider nuclear the only current real alternative. That's not to say though by the time if we ever do decide to build that some alternative energy wont be more viable. But on a terawatt per acre ratio, I'd much rather see a single nuclear plant than a thousand wind turbines dotted across my country side.

[xelasnave]

At the risk of bleating are not those disasters something worthy of consideration.. even without data one can guess that the damage suffering and cost to be not
Insignificant
To dismiss concerns of the uneducated will not put their minds at ease.
Whatever power station you opt for no one wants it in their back yard...maybe hydro if there are fish in the supply dam.

[xelasnave]

A side issue ..how to regulate energy gluttons
A ski resort in Dubai may be a money maker but can that type of energy use ..I see such as somewhat wastful..be accepted

[clive milne]

Alex, I am not an advocate of the nuclear industry by any stretch of the Imagination. However, I would suggest that it has been unfairly demonised. Consider for example, the quantity of radioactive material released in to the environment prior to the atmospheric weapons test ban. The US and soviets were setting them off like bored school kids with a stash of last year's fire crackers. Something like 1 per week.

[PeterEde]

Fukushima I don't consider a nuclear accident. At least not int he same vein as Chernobyl. Fukushima was the result of a Tsunami of unforseen magnitude. Chernobyl was ignorant human behavior.

Even taking into account all accidents Nuclear on average still kills far less than all other forms of power generation at .04 people per terrawatt hour of electricity. Fossil fueled is at the extreme with renewables somewhere in between.
We are exposed to more radiation in our daily lives than we'd otherwise be exposed to if we lived next door to a reactor.
Next gen reactors will have passive systems that exclude the possibility of chernobyl or Fukushima type accidents. Man made or otherwise.

If people really wanted the world to go green power then today Nuclear is the only currently viable option.
I'd much rather a plant here and there then our country side smeared in wind farms or solar stations.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Peter

True. It was just the result of a failed commercial gamble.

Sorry, but if what is reported is true, the designers didnt allow for a possible tsunami, that was forecast "but with a low probability". It was a cost/benefit gamble that didnt pay off this time. As per normal, nothing is a problem till it is one. With Nuclear, low probability problems need to be taken into account much more than with other power sources, but thats not "economically viable".

But what happens if everyone goes nuclear and take shortcuts for "commercial reasons". Currently, nuclear is still a small proportion of generation, so by the law of averages has a smaller chance of problems.
What will happen if reactors are built "en masse" everywhere????
I dont know the answer, but based on how the current "economy" works, i would be starting to get worried at a faster rate.

Andrew

[PeterEde]

With all the accidents, man made or acts of "God" nuclear still on average kills less people than every other form of power generation.
Coal fired stations spew out radioactive waste every day and no one says boo.
I'd rather live next to a plant than have a deadzone of a hundred square miles of solar power station or 200 square miles plus of wind turbines to produce the equivalent amount of power.
in 60 years of nuclear power we've had 3 "accident" only one of which killed anyone.

[AndrewJ]

Sorry, you implied Fukishima wasnt an "accident" and i beg to differ.
Also "act of god" is a weak excuse for "**** happens, get over it"
as long as i make a profit, who cares????


I reckon hydro or wind power kills less people ?????

Anything made by "man" and run for profit
is going to be subject to problems
and profit will always usurp the problems
for the benefit of the investors, not the users.

Andrew

[PeterEde]

you'd reckon wrong
http://emanuelemilitello.files.wordpress.c om/2014/05/deaths-per-terrawatt.gif

Fukushima would not have happened without the tsunami. It was a record breaking unforseen natural event that triggered a nuclear accident

[xelasnave]

Well whatever the cause both disasters have left many acres of land useless
No other energy supply breakdown produces such wasteland.
Even a dam bust although catastrophic leaves the land such that it can be recovered.
I accept NP may have a safer future but even the low number of accidents seem unacceptable and to treat them as statistically justifiable seems to wash over what happened in each of those cases.
Accidents are called such because they are unforeseeable but an accident has it's leftovers.
In the case of NP it results in a lot of useless land of a substantial nature can the future NP guarantee accidents won't happen or if they do vast tracts of land are not rendered usless.
When I asked how to make NP safer it was to seek an insite to a future where the little disasters to date are accepted as real and not merely a statistic which somehow makes it acceptable.
For Australia land coverage by wind turbines or solar panels seems a minor issue and it does not matter who will tolerate living where..it is about if we have new NP will it be safe..no acts of God etc no excuses that this or that was a one off but what will be different..
Anyways cost of NP sidelines it.
Coal and NP both boil water to run a turbine at the moment coal is the cheaper option so no doubt it will prevail and it's problems seen less because it is finally only the bottom line that counts in our current market driven economy.

[PeterEde]

Have you seen the area required for an equivalent solar plant. I'd consider that waste land. Not like you can live there. same for wind turbine. Cant live under them.

[el_draco]

Fukushima was a massive disaster and like all man made systems, its subject to design flaws and the proverbial "act of god" or, in other words "a design flaw" Based on the fact that these accidentts happen on a monotonously frequent basis and knowing how much effort is put into NOT maintaining these plants, you cannot blame the average blog from being nevous. The history and the press are both bad.



It irritates me no end that people refer to "Greenies" as if they were something despicable. If you accept the basic premise of a "Greenie" being one who gives a XXXX about protecting the environment we all rely on to survive, then they should be thought of in a slightly different way. Admittedly, Green politics are often tied to other less savory causes which I wont name here for fear of being attacked, but the majority of "Greenies" I know are clear thinking, rational people who are often far more qualified to comment on topics than those that make the decisions that inflict so much damage on our planet. The twit pit is dominated by corrupt, self indulgent parasites and they dont like it when "Greenies" get in there and name it up. Hense, the pervasive anti-green rhetoric that comes from said members of the twit pit.:screwy:

[xelasnave]

One can't change smothers beliefs with logic but I will leave you an observation.
After 50 years the solar and wind farm land could be uses for something else if new energies are employed. Our two disaster areas don't offer such an option for a long time after that

[xelasnave]

Yes Clive I lived thru that time.
I see irony here when one asks the question... where did they get the plutonium

[xelasnave]

Anyways I look to the future and the belief we improve and learn from mistakes
The energy waste is my concern.
There are folk trying to stop the boat sinking while gluttons drill holes in it...Sky Dubai just got to me.

[AndrewJ]

Again I disagree. There are lots of papers around re the followup
eg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/japan-s-reactor-risk-foretold-20-years-ago-in-u-s-nuclear-agency-s-report.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/world/asia/02japan.html?_r=1&ref=world
Earthquakes and Tsunamis arent "unforseen" in that location,
just what is the expected magnitude.
The design flaws were also known about, and sure, some were defined/refined after the reactors were built, but part of engineering responsibility is to review and update/upgrade things as required.
The problem is it is a cost benefit equation, and in this case, someone decided the risk wasnt worth the cost.

Andrew

[clive milne]

I can name two that are guaranteed to leave our planet in a considerably worse state.
Tar sand extraction in Canada is an immediately obvious example and of course coal in the long term.

[xelasnave]

Yes Clive that sand mining has to be up there..
Neverthess time is the issue.
What will 100 years show..even the sand thing in Canada can jump back and be habitable
Not sure how long to re inhabit our two disaster areas
I am only trying to be realistic and not argue against NP.
In any event there are many practices destroying the place so why should we worry about a higher level seemingly presented by NP.
To pin point my dislike of nuclear power advocacy is the dismissive attitude to those who point to disasters and the air of infallibility presented.The refusal to accept responsibility is infantile...and does harm to getting public support

[PeterEde]

Was it not the Green movement that stopped the Gordon/Franklin dam. Which would have produced more hydro power than Tassie required. but instead paved the way for coal power to expand?

Nice to maintain our pristine country. All for it. But where one state falls into economic ruin another thrives.

[el_draco]

Actually, Tasmania does still produce more power than it needs and, of that power, 65% is used by just a few industries, Zinc works, Alcoa etc. We don't use coal powered generation at all. Further, the current residents of the local twit pen want to add a second cable to the mainland to send "Green" power over there.

Tasmania is lead by incompetent, short sighted morons. They said that towns like Stahan would die if the Gordon below Franklin wasn't built and, instead, it is now a premier internationally recognised tourism town, with the benefit of wilderness that is unique in the world. Contrast that with Queenstown, just a few km's up the road and you have an environment that looks like its been nuked, denuded by pollution and rampant "development"; the only major employer in town, MT Lyell mine, now closed and local rivers that support nothing but toxic algae.

The Grodon Below Franklin was stopped by the Hawk Labour govt after international protest against the *******ry of the then liberal govt in Tassie which, at the time, was ramming a road through pristine, now World Heritage listed, wilderness. The previous Faiser Liberal govt refused to intervene despite all the protests nationally and internationally and was subsequently thrown out of power by mainlanders I might add.

Contrasting Strahan and Queenstown approaches to environmental protection is pretty simple. Being environmentally aware does not mean economic ruin.

It is also ludicrous to blame Tasmania's economic woes on the actions of "Greenies". We are supposed to be a single nation and yet federal govt after federal govt refuses to acknowledge the ditch as a national highway and, as a consequence, transport costs are ridiculously high. There are probably a dozen other examples I could name up but a lot of other issues here are related to political incompetence and dogma that continuously
seeks to play one part of the population against another.

The point I was also trying to make was that protecting the environment should be a fundamental concern of everyone, not just "Greenies". Economy stability is important but growth at all costs, including devastation of the environment, is intellectually stupid.

I might also raise the issue that the twits in the W.A. twit pit who enjoy bagging Tassie out forget that they have been in receipt of huge support in the past, and that even we Tasmanian's helped bale out Queensland because the twits up there couldn't be bothered insuring themselves against flood damage. Each state has its issues and chucking mud is not a good look. The corruption being exposed in all political parties in all states and at all levels should make us all rethink what the motivations are for criticism of "Greenies" and the "develop at all cost" cult in this country..

The answer for Tassie is "differentiate" and get smart. We do both brilliantly when we get it right, but the pollies screw up any attempts to stop the dogma wars, (The recent forestry peace deal is a prime example and you can add the stupidity of Abbotts pathetic attempts to reverse the listing of addition areas earlier in the year).

For me, I'll do what I can to protect the environment and hope that one day we actually have a political system worth my participation.

[sn1987a]

Well we've got some clever people in the world and if they were redeployed from trying to make slicker mobile phones, smarter bombs and focused their attention onto power generation issues who knows what might happen. As for nuclear no matter how much lipstick you put on it it's still a dirty, nasty thing subject to the number one fundamental law of the universe, Murphys law.

[clive milne]

fixed

[PeterEde]

Fossil fuel is the number one killer
but people seem to prefer it?

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Energy-Hazard-rate.gif

No matter how you slice and dice. Nuclear remains the least dangerous form of power generation we have today

[sn1987a]

We can start deploying out the solar panels, drilling the geothermal holes, erecting the windmills, digging the earthworks for solar updraft towers, building the trans continental power grid and going ultra efficient tomorrow.
And we could do all that with the money we're spending on subsidising increasingly expensive fossil fuels and nuclear disaster prevention.

Nuclear HA! yeah ok, whatever, good luck with that, I'll bet my left one in ten years time we won't have even turned the the first sod. :lol:

[multiweb]

And where are we getting all the energy to build all this hardware?
oh wait.... the wind :P

[PeterEde]

Pretty sure your right Barry.
But until the world is willing to build a global power grid we're stuck with fossil fuel power generation.
the scaremongers have been doing a great job the last 50 years.
But as I say to my fellow Portonians Nothing changes without giving something new a try.
Expecting things to get better on it's own is pointless.

[PeterEde]

Comparison of land area required for nuclear, Solar and wind.
http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Infographic-nuclear-solar-wind-footprints-628x353.jpg

[multiweb]

Actually this infographic is very misleading. What's the ground surface of parliamant house in Canberra? That's all the hot wind you need for an updraft tower. :question:

[sn1987a]

we'll get most of it from the exponential function :P

[el_draco]

Alas, short sighted and often vested interest policy making around the world has tipped the balance so far that we are going to have to consider nuclear energy for at least some applications despite its issues. However, I personally feel that chucking all eggs in any one basket, be it fossil or nuclear, is illogical and dangerous. We need a range of options geared to local strengths, in my opinion, and for Australia at least we have the ability to be a renewable energy super power.... just lack the political balls to step away from the tried and obviously failing old energy sources. :shrug:

[el_draco]

We appear to have quite a bit of land... 3million square kilometres if I remember correctly. Anyhow, the problem is not about power generation, its about population... the Elephant nobody wants to talk about until it drops a big one on your head. :lol:

[multiweb]

The next step in power generation will likely be gaz. They drilled so many wells north of the artic circle that it's starting to look like gruyere. When all the gaz is gone and there's nothing left to burn nuclear might become main stream or we might discover something better by then. Who knows.

[tlgerdes]

So why is population a problem?
What are you doing about your problem?
What do you to propose the world governments do about your problem?

[el_draco]

- This planet is round and therefore has limited surface area and hence carrying capacity which we have exceeded by a factor of 2+ already.
- This is not MY problem, its OUR problem as a species. We do something about it or ignore the problem and the biosphere will do something about it for us...
- governments need to ditch the "develop and grow population" dogma as a panacea for all our current problems and accept that the constant quest for both is the root cause of the problem. Once they've done that, which is highly unlikely, they can discourage population growth through policy direction, which they wont, and restructure the world economy for stability and renewal rather than growth, which they haven't got the intelligence to understand, or the balls to implement.

Undoubtedly, they'll continue to keep their collective heads shoved further up where they already are and maintain their current state of denial.. The "Shultx effect"

"I hear nothing"
"I see nothing"
"I know nothing"

:)

NB Just listened to National Press Club, discussing this very topic. Funny about that

[PeterEde]

Australia's problem is we have abundance of coal. WE also have an abundance of uranium. Economically we should be a super rich country with what we have. But we only mine uranium and process to U308 (Uranium Ore Concentrate) we do not value add. We allow other countries (France and Canada and USA) to enrich and on sell at 100 x what we sell UOC for.

I am pro nuke power but if that's not going to happen then we should atleast make the most profit from our resource and enrich to fuel grade/



Yes population is our No1 problem that no country wants to consider or discuss. Even Bindy Irwin can see this. Hilary Clinton shut her down.

Agenda 21 is looking more and more like more than a conspiracy theory

[avandonk]

It is not about what power sources we use. The anathema to the people that want to have all the centralised power is distributed power sources. This of course is wind and solar etc.

Do you want to be a slave to a fifteen billion dollar nuclear breeder reactor that will fail to live up to design expectations? Or have solar panels on your own roof? I base my expectations on the spectacular failures of past promises of nuclear power.

The reality is 80% of fossil fuels must remain in the ground where they belong.

This is the conundrum you all face. I do not care what you all do as I will be dead before the s h i t hits the fan.

The establishment are terrified that ordinary humans with solar and wind do not need their centralised power!

If you all realized how much power you really have against these idiots.

The world would be a better place.

Yes they are idiots!

Bert

[el_draco]

Spot on :thumbsup:

[avandonk]

The reality is we should be planning our electricity grids for all the contributors to its energy.

With distributed energy we would not need the wasteful 220 thousand volt high tension lines running through farmlands.

There is a place for coal and gas as a mediator to keep the grid viable until we eliminate it entirely.

Would you like to guess what the transmission loss is from the Latrobe Valley to Melbourne?

Bert

[el_draco]

Not being an electrical engineer, I couldn't say, but I know enough to know its substantial which is why I think the distributed, multifaceted approached, is the best way to go. The concept works as a network for the internet and is robust.... just makes sense.

[AndrewJ]

Except the bunnies at the top now realise that they have lost a lot of "control" of it. Sure they are now working hard to block/control the WWW, but thats not the only thing that uses the underlying "network".
Governments dont like "distributed" anything.



They flew a kite a few years back here re charging users for rain that fell on their own roofs ( if they had a tank or dam), as it removed profit from the centralised supply system, and they couldnt use "user pays" for urban sewerage calcs.
I reckon if they saw that they were losing money, it wouldnt take long before they started taxing people for having solar panels, vs increase base charges to those left on the system. With the current aerial photography techniques, it would be relatively easy for them to automate a panel counter.

Andrew

[AndrewJ]

Gday Bert


Quite high methinks.
What is interesting is the work being done in China re High voltage DC transmission. Looking closer to being feasible on a large scale network, and it minimises transmission losses whilst also allowing "third party sources" to easily feed into it.
Only problem is, if we get cheaper power, we will only use it to justify sustaining a faster population growth using the same resources.
ie it will speed up the inevitable.

Andrew

[el_draco]

If what i heard on the radio the other day is any guide "they" wont be around in the near future. Appparently 40% of the population believe our "democracy" is a failed system and a substantially higher % believe it wont last much longer... me included.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Rom



"They", will be pollies, warlords, dictators, priests, etc etc
It is human nature that someone will always want to be in control
and will rise to the top when someone else falls,
and they will all want subservience and money from the population
to pay for them.
Only thing that changes is who is on top
are they benevolent or not
and what will they tax to fund themselves.
The current political model we have here now isnt too bad considering,
but unless they address the fact that if an ever increasing economy
is required to survive "economically", what is the end result???
Nature doesnt like monocultures

Andrew

[el_draco]

Kind of prefer a monarchy myself...
Not perfect, but Liz beats the box heads we have to choose from hands down :eyepop:
Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves... :thumbsup:
Oooh, what I said ;)

Cor blimey, I can hear the bleedin Scots and Irish squarkin already....:rofl::rofl:

[xelasnave]

Having a chat and it was presented to me the cost of decommissioning a plant was twice it cost to build it..Please tell me that is negative propaganda
I don't want to argue with who told me but I would like an opinion from an advocate of NP to get a balance at least.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Alex

As i posted earlier in this thread

If the reactor is owned by the state, then it may be decommissioned properly, but if the reactor is a "commercial" entity, then i have grave fears that the end of life "clean up" will not have been allowed for or funded.
You only have to read the litany of "cost saving" measures that were exposed as a result of Fukushima to see that commercial expediency will always override what is required to do it properly. Just the nature of a "good economy"

Andrew

[PeterEde]

No one has watched Barry's video have they. Where all these questions were asked and answered.
Any government that does not put in a decommissioning clause is negligent. That goes with ANY mine or industrial plant. It's costed over the life of the plant. Having said that a Penrice plant in Port Adelaide is closed and they are broke. But the state Labor government is not going to make them clean it up. I guess it'll be left derelict for years

[xelasnave]

Thanks Andrew and thanks Peter.
I must have missed something I don't recall seeing a cost of build to cost of demotion anywhere..
Anyways great inputs everyone I am probably less anti than before.
Shouldn't we save coal for plastics and fertilizer and uranium for those long space flights when we abandon this planet

[PeterEde]

With a complete combustion or fission, approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235. Related to one kilogram, uranium-235 contains two to three million times the energy equivalent of oil or coal. The illustration shows how much coal, oil or natural uranium is required for a certain quantity of electricity. Thus, 1 kg natural uranium - following a corresponding enrichment and used for power generation in light water reactors - corresponds to nearly 10,000 kg of mineral oil or 14,000 kg of coal and enables the generation of 45,000 kWh of electricity.

Energy density of uranium is amazing by comparison to coal.
We make much more mess of the environment digging up coal than we do digging up uranium

[AndrewJ]

Gday Peter


Dont go to sleep with your head under the pillow then, as the tooth faeries will come and take all your teeth.
All governments are negligent, just you seem to refuse to believe it.
Most make contracts that are "commercial in confidence", and are designed for short term gain where heads they win and tails you lose.
Just look at the recent coal mine fires in the Latrobe Valley.
Mines supposed to be rehabilitated that werent.
Mines that had their fire fighting systems removed/not maintained.
Pollution limits "adjusted" as required to ensure no problem exists.
Sorry, but govt and private industry doesnt give a $h!t other than how to make a profit and keep the economy going, and you need to take that into account when determining what the end results may be of a commercially viable proposition.

Andrew

[PeterEde]

I worked for BHP at Olympic Dam. I saw the plans for reverting the land to it's "Original" state at the end of the mine life. Obviously having a plan and being made to do are two different things.
Olympic Dam is backfilled as ore is removed. That just leaves dismantling of the plant.
Australia is fast running out of exportable anything. All we have left are our resources

[Amaranthus]

As Peter said, watch the video. All the issues are covered there in the Q&A:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J06Vhlw52o
I'm the bald guy on the right :lol:

[el_draco]

Hallelujah to that brother. Queenstown in Tassie is the perfect example. Many years of toxic waste poured into the rivers to the point where they may as well be radioactive, and nobody is responsible for the clean-up... :eyepop:

[PeterEde]

Believe it or not I am a "Greenie" at heart. That is why I'd rather see one nuke plant instead of thousands of wind turbines. I love my countryside pristine as possible.
But a country does not grow without mining in our case. So it becomes a bit of give and take. In moderation of course. And every site should be forced to clean up after

[clive milne]

From the perspective of a corporation, the most important interpretation of the term 'negligent ' is: Failing to act in a way to maximise profit.
When a government's actions appear negligent with respect to the best interests of the general population but are consistent with corporate values, it is easy to label them as (insert invective here) However, it is likely that they are functioning as vassals (to multinational corporations)



Neither coal nor oil is costed to include the deferred costs associated with pollution. If it were the case, these sources of energy would be untenable in an open market. The fact that fossil fuels are promoted as our only viable option simply illustrates the extent to which the functions of media and government have been abrogated (globally)
If the above statement is correct, it follows that; nuclear power is not compatible with the hierarchy of values prescribed by our current political/financial system....
If it came down to a choice, I would prefer responsible application of nuclear technology over government by, for and of the corporations (which is intrinsically far more toxic).

[el_draco]

... and that's why we are screwed. The vast majority have been conned by the "sustainable growth" oxymoron. Complete twaddle. We need massive contraction and then long term stability. Excellent National Press club on Saturday. Worth looking at.

[Barrykgerdes]

The last thing we need is nuclear power on Earth. It will create more pollution than a millenium of coal and gas. Let the Sun create all the nuclear power we want.

Wind power is too expensive and erratic. Besides the more energy we remove from the circulating winds the more it will alter climate.

The best source of power is to build dams to store water when it rains and release the stored energy to drive generators. However we can't store enough energy this way to supply all our needs.

In the short term the safest and cheapest is coal fired power that has been improved in efficiency over the years so much that all the pollutants are removed before the left over CO2 is released to continue the carbon cycle.

Of course this surmise won't go over well with the people that are pushing political agenda.

[PeterEde]

We really don't look past our nose these days do we? Coal produces tonnes and tonnes of waste. Toxic waste every single day. It takes thousands of tonnes more coal to produce the same energy.
Next gen plants use recycled/spent fuel as fuel.
We can stop digging up uranium and coal today and power the earth for 500 years. Chernobyl is the only accident to cause death. Future on the dwg board reactors are passive in that they can not melt down as Chernobyl did or fukushima. The systems shut down due to natural physics.
And clean coal and a belief in that is not pushing an agenda?

[xelasnave]

Peter I have found your presentation of facts persuasive and although I have reservations you have made me feel happier about the prospect of NP.
It seems finally the real problem is sufficient regulation
Coal could have been handled better
Our subservience to the market needs adjustment such that money and profit are not the only considerations for sustainability

[avandonk]

There is no simple solution.

We are all living on stored wealth in the form of fossil fuels. This has allowed us to overrun Planet Earth like vermin. Yes I am one of these vermin.


If all the current known fossil fuel reserves were burnt at the current increasing rates we would have a planet that was uninhabitable. We have about ten years before the tipping points of our climate occur.

Any form of nuclear fission power just puts this grim future back by about fifty years.

The long held promise of unlimited energy from fusion reactors is tainted by the fact that the reactor vessel made of exotic metals will become structurally unsafe due to the high neutron flux within about twenty years. These reactors are too dangerous to dismantle! The solution is to build another next door etc.

We have a nuclear reactor that will last for about another five billion years.

It is the Sun.

If we do not learn how to use renewable energy and limit our greed to this limited energy, we do not have a future as a species.

It is down to ALL of US!

Bert

[clive milne]

It think the consensus in the scientific community is that we can burn no more than 20 to 25% of current known reserves before the feedback loops become stronger climate levers than our own activities. It might even be less.
I have zero confidence that we will avoid that outcome.

Incidentally, here's a bit of an hypothetical question.
If we as a species look set to deplete one planet's worth of resources in the time elapsed since the industrial revolution, would it not stand to reason that any given species with similar social and mental attributes would act in a similar way? Now consider the real possibility that we are not the first species to leave our planet, and consider we will no doubt do so again in search of resources (assuming we survive that long) It follows then that any existing advanced species we might potentially overlap territorially would regard us with some degree of hostility. It would be a natural response for them to sabotage our development to the extent that we could never challenge them.
Would there be a more efficient method of doing this than directing us down the path of self destruction at our own hand?

[sn1987a]

The singularity will be here soon and all these problems will be solved.... one way or another

[PeterEde]

I respect your opinion as I do all others. Obviously we have differing ideas. But all your premise is based on todays technologies.
We have enough nuclear material already mined to stop using coal and run the planet for 500 years. according to Barry in his video. People can argue that with him.
Uranium mining is a far less disturbance on the land than is strip mining coal.
Burning coal releases tonnes of radioactive material into the atmosphere. Most are not aware of that. I wasn't

But while Australia has an abundance of coal and the unions control the government be it ALP or Libs we will continue to run coal. That is no.1 reason libs dumped the tax.

I have solar power. was the 1st thing I put on my recently purchased home. If Kevin Rudd was really so caring about the environment instead of handing out free money he would have paid for panels on every roof top.

By the time we consider seriously nuclear fusion power or some other great saviour will be discovered. I'm all for that.
Maybe instead of calling it a Carbon tax they should have just called it and environmental tax. After all we did away with CFC with legislation. Didn't need a tax for that

[el_draco]

There are not enough rivers on the planet to dam and doing so would screw many many ecosystems.

Coal can NEVER be pollution free for the simple reason that its number one by-product is CO2. Releasing that C02 is is not part of the carbon cycle that allows us to continue to exist. There is no way in hell we could survive it. :eyepop:

No political agenda involved, just yr 8 Science. :rolleyes:

Sorry

[PeterEde]

Didn't someone theorize just the other day we're on the event horizon already?

[Barrykgerdes]

Sorry you only have year 8 science. I have 60 years behind me and I studied before the corriculum became tainted.

As I keep saying CO2 is not a pollutant. Besides it makes up so little of the atmosphere its effect is minimal. By the way What is the difference of CO2 from Breathing, Burning coal, Burning gas or any other combustion. It is still CO2!

At my age with terminal cancer I can afford to rock the boat!

Barry

[Amaranthus]

Apart from different isotopic ratios (fossil-derived CO2 has no C14 and little C13), nothing on a molecular basis. However, the CO2 that comes from your breath was in the atmosphere a few moments before. The CO2 that comes from burning coal and gas is ancient and has been trapped/sequestered away from the atmosphere for millions of years.

So your breath is not contributing to a net increasing in the number of CO2 molecules in the modern atmosphere. The latter is.

[sn1987a]

Hi....:thumbsup:

Sorry just looking for the hat trick


cheers
Barry

[PeterEde]

So you and Ian Plimer don't see eye to eye Barry?

[Amaranthus]

No (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/)

[Camelopardalis]

It's not the CO2 that's the problem, in that respect, from coal power stations, it's all the nitrogen and sulphuric oxides...those are more damaging to the environment, i.e. the green bits like trees and plants...ever heard of acid rain? Was a big problem in northern Europe when I was a kid.

[el_draco]

Rock the boat as much as you like The carbon in sinks like coal and oil have been accumulating for millions and millions of of years to the point where carbon represents only a tiny fraction of our atmosphere. Its that situation that has allowed the "current equilibrium" to exist and life, as we know it, to thrive. If we continue to empty the sinks back into the biosphere, life, as we know it, wont survive, period. The fact that burning these fossil fuels also dumps a bunch of other toxics into the environment is yet another major problem to contend with and their effects are well documented.

I teach Science, by the way... ;)

[PeterEde]

What about the fact that atmospheric CO2 has been up as high as 4000ppm and the life thrived?
CO2 even at todays levels are far from toxic and have not been proven one iota to be the cause of any warming esp when we've had no warming for 15 years now?
Plants die without CO2 We die without plants.
One volcano can produce more CO2 in one week than Australia in a year.
China building how many coal burners now as well as nuclear reactors (hedging their bet?)
We've had how many ice ages long before man and the industrial age. Infact aren't we still in an ice age as long as there's ice on the poles?
Greenland was in fact Green once.
People derided Abbotts direct action plan but I remember years ago as a kid planting trees. In fact why are why blaming the production or release of CO2 and not the fact that we humans have been deforesting the planet since we figured out how to farm. How much impact has the deforestation of the planet increase the CO2 levels?

[el_draco]

Well, here we go again... Of the Scientific work that has been peer reviewed the overwhelming consensus is that global warming is real and its leading to climate change... Amongst those who KNOW the science, there is NO doubt what so ever. PERIOD. Get over it, suck it up or whatever else but the verdict is in and it's guilty as charged.



Yep, but NOT US! If you want to try living in a 4000 ppm state, please completely seal a room in your house and stay in there for a couple of days... Report back.



Nobody said CO2 was toxic, but to much of it will sure wreck your day. Quote whatever denialist claims you like, I refer to the above.



Also true, but the carbon cycle is a dynamic equilibrium that must be maintained within certain limits or the biosphere starts dialing out species... Come on, this is BASIC science


Yeah. So what? We are adding to the background releases and it's causing problems. Again, there is NO serious dispute in the Scientific community



Point being? Coal burners take a lot less time to build. Their population is stupidly high and they are trying to meet demand. They are also investing massive amount in renewables. Maybe they are responding to the fact that its to frigging toxic to breathe outside in many areas and the population is starting to defy the firing squads.



Yeah. So what? Whats the point? Are you happy to just go along with the way things are? We appear to be at the start of the next catastrophic global extinction... Do you REALLY, REALLY want to do anything to risk make that worse???? Try this experiment. Stick some coal in a bucket, light it up. When its burning strongly, stick your face in the smoke. Breath deep. Record the reaction. Apply to planet earth...



Funnily enough, for generations people have been fighting to protect forests around the world and deforestation has massively accelerated in the last century; its called industrial logging and we are dropping a Belgium a year at the moment. Sustainable???
Yep, trees suck up CO2 but most of it gets released again when the tree dies.. decomposition, (you know, part of the carbon cycle)

The problem is, you release all that FOSSIL carbon, the stuff that's been sucked out of the atmosphere for millennia, and BURIED, and you have a recipe for deep ****e guaranteed. Abbotts a moron; totally owned by big coal and making a laughing stock of Australia on the international stage. This dim witted twit ripped $100 million out of the CSIRO and gave it to bible-bashers in schools. Speaks volumes for his other policies, including "direct obfuscation"

Really folks... It is scary that people with an interest in Science should argue over really basic stuff or is it, as I heard on the radio this morning, that policy on climate change is driven by political ideology rather than rational thinking? REALLY???? :screwy::screwy:

What are you going to say to your kids when you hand them a devastated planet? We didn't know??? B.S.

[Barrykgerdes]

That is what disturbs me more than anything else.

Barry

[el_draco]

If it was most other people I know, I'd share your concerns, but I am pleased to advise, I teach old style... and I get results.Of course, if you can do better, please do... Become a teacher and see just what you have to put up with in the classroom. You might also ask why this is so? Teachers fault... Yeah right. The average teacher gets 6 dedicated minutes per kid per week, PROVIDED nobody else fires up in class. Before making statements about teachers, make them about parenting, government policy and social attitudes towards anything that requires more than 3 brain cells and 30 seconds to do...:rolleyes:

[PeterEde]

Teaching science doesnt make you right. The science is not settled. All the computer models based on your science fail to predict anything meaning full.
Being a science teacher makes you no more a scientist than me unless you have a history of reseach. Your facts are no better and no worse than mine

[el_draco]

never said it did and my knowledge is far from "authority" in any field but the Science is absolutely settled and those that claim its not either have a vested interest or are deluded. The consensus is there and thats just a reality. However, since there still seem to be those who prefer to say the science is NOT settled, I pose the question... " ARE YOU PREPARED TO RISK IT?" :question:

[PeterEde]

Who has settled the science? The much discredited IPCC. I would never believe anything that came from them and they were "The Authority"
There are as many scientists against IPCC findings if not more but since our media had or still has a left slant they never get a mention.
I have no doubts climate change is real. Seasons shift over time always have. Our seasons now are roughly a month out of whack with the calendar. Summer does not actually start until the 20th Dec.
What about the effect the great big thing in the sky we all bow down to. The greatest influence on our climate.
We have only just past the perihelion which will cause a rise in temps to a plateau and then it drops away again.

No I am not a scientist. But I refuse to believe the garbage from the IPCC. The IPCC published crap from anyone calling themselves a "Climate scientist" They did no research but were quiet happy to fudge the numbers they had.

I'll risk it. No tax is going to change a thing. But legislation will. Why didn't the Labor party just legislate companies to reduce the production of CO2? They did it years ago to end CFC in the atmosphere.
We know why. It was a money raising venture and nothing more.

[el_draco]

Well, its down to politics and you are prepared to risk the planet.. Wow.:eyepop:
I, for one, consider it a risk I am not prepared to make with the lives of my children and their children, let alone the many other species that will pay the consequences of our "gambling".

Frankly, I gave up on politics and politicians years ago because they are just totally and utterly incompetent at everything they do. Pick up any newspaper for the proof of that. :( The Scientific consensus is clear, unless you believe there is a global conspiracy by the worlds Scientists... of course!, and the likes of Abbott respond by shooting the messenger.

[PeterEde]

I just don't believe throwing money at climate change is going to do diddley squat. Gillards tax did nothing but cost the country billions. Change the temp by what? No one has managed to put any measurable number on that and any number that small certainly don't justify billions.
It's even been mentioned here already the the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor. CO2 has by no means been proven to cause anything.

[PeterEde]

The end of my say. Probably pissed off enough people in my few days here already

[el_draco]

When discussion ends, nothing changes. You are as entitled to your views as anyone else.

I think waiting for politicians to do anything is a waste of time and I suspect we need a personal code of conduct based on the premise that we don't own the planet, we merely safeguard it for those who follow.

Logic says protect it because we don't have a replacement. Whether you believe the science or not, the logic should be obvious.

[clive milne]

Some of the above (recent) comments serve to reinforce my conviction that democracy (rule by public opinion) is in fact not such a good idea.

[sn1987a]

I think they're trying out an alternative in Syria/Iraq right now.:P

[clive milne]

Indeed... and being that the charnel houses of Iraq and Syria are a deliberate and direct consequence of the geo-poliical machinations of the ostensible democracy that directs proceedings in the region, it does nothing but reinforce my belief further.

[sn1987a]

I thought we were living in a Democracy coated Plutocracy.:sadeyes:

[clive milne]

That is why I used the term 'ostensible'

(Which demographic controls the money?)

[sn1987a]

Me!, Thursday night when I win 70 million on Powerball.:D

[xelasnave]

Members please settle down..no.politics remember...the topic is safer nuclear power.
Like really the problem is a growing population and how to feed it and supply energy...and water..NP is something that will be ...how safe can we make it...we will need everything generating power to supply the population...rising standards of living means we simply need more power

[Barrykgerdes]

Hi

Great I like your dedication. So we don't get sidelined by misinterpretation I have sent you a PM.

Barry

[el_draco]

Got it :thumbsup:

[avandonk]

If it cheers anyone up we are already using renewable resources that our planet gives us for free at the rate of 150%. This is of course such things air, water, soil and the once bountiful oceans.

Here

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/earth_overshoot_day/

This is unsustainable.

Denial will just make you feel better.

We can keep polluting and exploiting until there is nothing left.

I just wish I was wrong.

The people with all the 'money' think they are insulated. One cannot eat 'money'.

Soylent Green anyone?

We are as mindless as the bacteria in a Petri dish. We multiply until we have used half the nutrients in the dish. Then we multiply again and we are at 100%.

Humanity is currently using our life supporting resources at about 150% of the ability of the planet to produce.

Hand waving arguments by the ignorati saying that the very science they are denying will save them is frankly absurd.

Have a nice rest of your life. If you are younger than me you are in real trouble.

I do not care for myself in all this. I have children and grandchildren and I fear for them as I do for all other younger and yet to be born humans.

Bert

[raymo]

Hear hear Bert. Luckily for me, I am already old.
raymo

[acropolite]

Some light reading, of course no data to back up the story, but if one kid pees in a swimming pool the whole pool is compromised, equally so with our oceans.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd601.htm

[xelasnave]

Light reading indeed..
I read the link and links last might and could not get to sleep.
I do wonder what the data indicates
I think I will take the head in the sand approach as I don't think I really want to know if it is as serious as suggested..