The following table is from today's article in the Australian summarising the Switkowski report. It compares the safety record of various electricity generation industries, but drastically skews the results in favour of nuclear. For example, the figure for coal includes the entire industry, which presumably includes mining where a lot of accidents have traditionally occured (and still do in many parts of the world). The deaths from nuclear power only include Chernobyl, and only include staff that died within four months. Are we to believe that there has not been a single death anywhere in the world from mining, refining and transporting uranium? The article mentions that 5000 more people may die prematurely as a result of Chernobyl alone, which would make it more dangerous than most of the other technologies, but conveniently leaves any reasonable statistic out of the table. For other industries, both figures are given where the statistics could be interpretted differently. See the 'fine print' at the bottom for more info.

               no. accidents  direct deaths  direct deaths per GWe/year
Coal          1221             25107             0.876
Oil              397              20853             0.436
Coal*          177               7090             0.690          
Natural gas  125               1978             0.093
LPG             105               3921             3.536  
Hydro            11             29938             4.265
Hydro**        10               3938             0.561
Nuclear           1                   31***       0.006

*excludes China
**excludes the Banqiao dam accident
***only includes Chernobyl staff who died within 4 months

Of course the report has been modified to suit the Commonwealth's agenda and is definitely misleading in regard to deaths - but what else could we expect.  There have been hundreds of nuclear power station accidents - not as large as Chernobyl though - and I'm fairly sure there have been quite a few deaths from these "minor" accidents.

Generally it appears Australians don't want NP here and I'm certainly one of them.  These stations will be strategically placed on the east coast.   It's criminal that we are even considering nuclear power, considering we have so many natural resources - sunshine, wind and geo thermal.

There is another reason behind this.  Our government has done some deals we don't know about and it may be associated with our sales of uranium where we have to meet the obligation of having the depleted uranium sent back to us.

Whatever Switkowski said in his report - it's obvious it's only been prepared to suit the purposes of some multinationals who have put pressure on our government and will definitely involve us being "The World's First Nuclear Waste Dump".

Nuclear power should be the last resort, not the first. If after several years of massive research and investment in solar/wind/tidal power it is truly discovered that these are unsuitable then perhaps we might move towards nuclear.

Of course no such discovery will be made. The mining and oil companies know this full well and are doing everything in their power to suppress renewable technology both in the laboratory and the media.

The fact that without checking out the facts the Lying Rodent went straight to nuclear goes to show his political cowardice, intellectual laziness and irrevocably reactionary cast of thought.

If any of you are thinking of voting for him next election I have a profound and simple message for you.

Don't.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2006 at 3:30pm:

no. accidents  direct deaths  direct deaths per GWe/year Coal          1221             25107             0.876 Oil              397              20853             0.436 Coal*          177               7090             0.690           Natural gas  125               1978             0.093 LPG             105               3921             3.536   Hydro            11             29938             4.265 Hydro**        10               3938             0.561 Nuclear           1                   31***       0.006 *excludes China **excludes the Banqiao dam accident ***only includes Chernobyl staff who died within 4 months

I see that it says nuclear not, uranium so the report is true.

Obviously the report should have Uranium statistics as well, or instead. Just some fundamental I think trying to prove a point. There are a lot of better ways to argue for nuclear this person was just lazy.

Nuclear (Uranium) makes more energy than coal per head of labour.

Switkowski has no right being lazy in his report.  I remember looking up figures a few months back and there were so many accidents in Japan at their nuclear processing plants.  Switkowski would have been paid possibly a $1 million or more to mislead us and it's disgusting the way this government pays and employs their mates to get the results they want to deceive the people.

How much are our politicians being paid by the conglomerates behind the proposed NP plants?

A relative of mine once had a lecturer who was responsible for one of those accidents in Japan, which was why he is now teaching instead.

I saw an interesting doco on SBS Monday night. I think it put the Chernobyl deaths at 52 - mostly from the cleanup crew, and a few thyroid cancers in children. Apparently there was radioactive iodine fallout which ended up in the food chain and in the cows milk, then in the thyroid glands of children. I might have some of those details wrong though.

The big point was that apart from that there was no measurable increase in cancer among the general population. Before Chernobyl, most of our knowledge was based on the aftermath of the bombs in Japan. Extrapolating from that to low doses they still expected a significant increase in cancer rates from Chernobyl, but it didn't happen. Maybe there is some kind of threshhold below which our bodies can deal with the radiation, but if you go above that then the cancer rate skyrockets.

Freediver - I don't think those figures are entirely accurate and believe they have been hushed up.  About a year ago I saw a documentary on the children born after Chernobyl whose parents lived in the surrounding area.

There was an entire orphanage full of brain damaged and deformed children - left to rot.  These poor little people had no stimulation, no comfort or love and were left to entertain themselves in huge empty rooms.  The few that were self destructive were tied up in order not to harm others or themselves.

It was a disgrace and I believe this was only the tip of the iceberg.  We will never know the full ramifications of the Chernobyl fallout as it is definitely being kept a global secret.  There's too much money to lose by world leaders if we knew the truth.

You get brain damaged kids anywhere, and in Russia that passes for standard health care for the mentally ill.

mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2007 at 5:00pm:

Switkowski has no right being lazy in his report.  I remember looking up figures a few months back and there were so many accidents in Japan at their nuclear processing plants.  Switkowski would have been paid possibly a $1 million or more to mislead us and it's disgusting the way this government pays and employs their mates to get the results they want to deceive the people. How much are our politicians being paid by the conglomerates behind the proposed NP plants?

Ziggy was the right choice when you look at his CV. For one he is a nuclear physician. I listened to his speach and I actually thought when he rapped up that he wasn't recommending it especially when he said 'not viable'.

Like all reports, he has handed it in and now the media will go to work disecting it and pulling out whatever they want to use to make Nuclear look good. (If they support Nuclear)

Maybe FreeDiver can talk to Ziggy and ask him to be a guess on this site for a couple of hours to answer everyone's questions. Another marketing drawcard for Oz Politics!
[smiley=engel017.gif]

Got any contact details for him? PM me if you do.

Try emailing him from this site...

http://www.ceoforum.com.au/article-detail.cfm?cid=6124

Ziggy, I believe, would make a great leader to this country but it would be nice to know his views in other areas like Crime, Education, Health etc.

Hope you got this message - http://cracker.com.au/viewthread.aspx?threadid=155310&categoryid=11121&pg=2

Yep, thanks for that.

The six-member panel has made no specific recommendations in its report released today, but presents a number of "findings".

Among the chief findings is that it would be almost impossible to make a case for nuclear power were it not for concerns about harmful carbon emissions from coal-fired plants.

That is because coal and gas are so cheap in Australia, relative to other energy sources.

The report also makes clear the scientists do not believe renewable energy sources such as solar and wind will make substantial contributions to power needs.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20793011-5005080,00.html

Here's a great interview with Ziggy;

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1657941.htm

Enviro - maybe on paper Ziggy sounds like the best man for the job of compiling a Nuclear Report for the Howard government - but morally he isn't.  He is a capitalist and buddy of Howards for a start.

He is biased - that's obvious and his wages are paid by this Federal Government.  He has spent years running multicorporations and it's quite apparent where his interests lie.

Yes he can compile a feasible enough sounding nuclear report to impress his bosses - but it doesn't mean that he has been  honest.

For one it wasn't an impressive report as it was full of negatives. The media is the one that is pulling the positives out and twisting the negatives around to favor Howard.

Yes, he has spent years running, successfully, multicorporations and this only highlights his uncanny ability to achieve. Don't forget, running a country is like running a business. People will say that businesses forget about the people but this is not true, a successful business includes the people and looks after their staff, especially in a country where it is hard to find good staff with low unemployment figures and high non english speaking immigration.

Howards not aloud to have any friends?

From the reports we have heard about Telstra - it was in bad shape when Ziggy left.  According to the 3 amigos - the company had been run down and wasn't making a profit for the shareholders - they were actually being paid out of the capital or anticipated profits of the company.  Something to that effect anyway.

Of course Howard's allowed to have friends - he just doesn't need to put them in high and influential positions.  The Federal Government isn't a "boys own" club - well it is - but it's not supposed to be.

It's strange how the media attacked him in Telstra. Ziggy focused on Research within Telstra which was an investment for Telstra in competition with privatisation of the communications sector.

Yes, he was paying shareholders out of anticipated massive profits which are now starting to come to light. He kept Telstra competitive and leaders in the Mobile and Broadband areas. If Telstra was doing so bad do you think they would have had Telstra 3 share listings?

The media ruthlessly got behind the attack on Ziggy the same way they tarnish him by making out that he is 100% behind the feasability of Nuclear Energy in Australia. I wonder what he did to earn the bashing from the media? Yes, his friend Howard is probably his protector but that is how the elite work.

We tend to run in circles made up of classes. Most of Howards friends would be influential people, that's the world we live in. It's who you know not what you know... and the same be said of Ziggy.

Can you really imagine Howard or Ziggy having a brickies labourer over for dinner and a chat on nuclear physics or economics etc?

:)

No I can't see Howard socialising with the "underclass" although I suppose he makes the effort around campaign time and at his sporting events.

I think Ziggy has been overrated, but if it isn't true about Telstra being in such bad shape after his reign - surely the media wouldn't have portrayed it as that?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-denies-conspiracy-over-nuke-reactor/2007/02/28/1172338635234.html

The government denies there is anything sinister about the fact it launched a review into the pros and cons of nuclear power around the same time a Liberal powerbroker set up a nuclear energy company.

Prime Minister John Howard admitted in parliament to knowing that former Liberal Party treasurer Ron Walker was setting up the company, which was registered just days before the establishment of the nuclear taskforce.

Mr Howard refused to elaborate on the issue on Tuesday night as he headed into a function organised by the Menzies Research Centre.

Mr Walker and fellow businessmen Robert Champion de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan registered Australian Nuclear Energy (ANE) Pty Ltd on June 1 last year, five days before Mr Howard set up his prime ministerial taskforce.

ANE was forced to deny newspaper reports that it was planning to build Australia's first nuclear power station in either Victoria or South Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Nuclear-power-a-cleaner-energy-source/2007/02/28/1172338630687.html

If Australians were serious about tackling global warming then embracing nuclear power was a logical next step, the man who headed the government's nuclear taskforce said.

Prime Minister John Howard admitted on Tuesday knowing that Liberal powerbroker Ron Walker was setting up a nuclear energy company around the same time he announced the taskforce, headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski.

"If as the direction of the mood is at the moment and we decide that global warming is a serious international and local matter and we in Australia are going to do something about it and therefore progressively deploy cleaner and cleaner source sources of energy ... then it's a very small step to accept there are very few other alternative for clean energy generation," he said.

"At the top of the list is nuclear."

Does our government care about the real dangers of nuclear power?  The threat being made today by the PM that nuclear power stations are definitely going to be a reality - one way or another - no discussion - no bipartison support, just get them established now before the next election.

Regardless of the positive side preached by pro-nuclear groups, the negative side is rarely mentioned and far outweighs anything good about NP.  

We do need an alternative to coal, but NP will just be working alongside it.  There are no plans to get rid of fossil fuel.  The government is still investing heavily in it, even though there is so much healthy green technology out there, Howard is reluctant to support it.

Once we open up more mines to increase our export, establish Chinese technology to build our reactors (not even our technology) - we are commissioned to open up a World Nuclear Waste Dump in the NT to take back nuclear waste from the countries we export to.

There is no effective technology for nuclear waste and we can't expect or trust future generations for the next few hundred years to manage it safely.  We are also geologically fragile.

Once the dump is established here - spills en route from Russia, India or wherever, and accidents are inevitable,  and will cause irreparable damage to our oceans ecosystem and consequently us.

What else are you going to use for base load power?

Of course technologies are going to operate side by side. It not just flipping a switch.

How important is global warming to you. All generation of power will have a detrimental effect on the environment directly and indirectly and all the environmental inputs and outputs need to be weighed up

Nuclear is a proven base load power source and the waste products are more easily sequestered than our current power source

/scary music "We haven't got much time"

There is solar power technology being developed right now in Australia which is only getting the tiniest bit of investment from our government.  They are ignoring it, but the US isn't, so they will be the ones investing in this company as they are confident it will cope as the base load in some of their major cities.

There is also geothermal power.  This is being commercially used in more than 70 countries.  We have a company right here in Australia who has developed energy through geothermal technology, which is capable of working alongside solar at little cost with no emissions.   This company is struggling and can't replace essential machinery quickly, because they receive so little funding from this government.

There are a dozen other alternatives, but the new technology for solar is capable of meeting our needs if we are careful.

That's the big word "careful" - too few want to be careful and demand a prolificness of energy, no matter where it comes from.

Neither of those has been commercially tested for supplying the base load power requirements of major cities, that's not saying they couldn't be eventually, but at this point in time nuclear is our best option for supply and saving the world from global warming given the time frame to avert disaster.

It goes against the grain of the traditional environmentalist because anti-nukes has been their form of revenue over some of the last 30 years, but with the realisation that pumping gases from burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere has a profound buildup effect, the best we can do is to get more bang for our buck while shrinking and containing the waste product.

We may not be emitting too many gasses through nuclear energy, but the gasses and toxins produced by the mining of uranium, processing, building reactors, disposing of reactors and storing a terrible, long lasting, toxic waste far outweighs any benefits.

We need to get rid of coal fired power stations as well.  There are healthy alternatives - that are environmentally safe and sound, but there is too much money to be made by multinationals and friends of politicians and politicians themselves, that they are diminishing the competition before it's given a chance.  

As far as solar being commercially tested in Australia, this could be a reality very quickly with a bit more interest and support from this current government.

Renewable energies are capable of supplying base load power.
Google "Pinnacle battery", yet another novel Aussie invention that has mostly been lost/stolen.

There are also solar towers, a town called whitecliffs in west NSW has has only solar power for well over a decade. More reliably than city power.
Hot rocks is used overseas reliably.

The Coal industry has a LOT of political leverage.

By focussing on assisting the current system we have with renewables, I believe that would be ample.



In the real world though, I see nuclear power with assistance from renewables eventually.
Which is a pity.

Renewable energies are capable of supplying base load power.

No they aren't

There are also solar towers, a town called whitecliffs in west NSW has has only solar power for well over a decade. More reliably than city power.

Pfft..Whitecliff only catered for 200-500 people and generated 25-45kW. Even then the township wanted to be connected to the grid to alleviate shortcomings.

Not too mention the detrimental environmental aspects of battery manufacture and disposal...

Hi IQSRLOW,
How are you ?

Given power storage methods (flow batteries) base load capacity is very possible.
As it is, all we need is assistance to the existing system anyway, not a whole new thing.
Even if renewables are assistance to base load, that is good and means many extra power stations  do not have to be built.
By generating power close to the demand the system is a lot more efficient.
Lots of losses occur the further power is transmitted.
By allocating renewable systems in more remote locations the energy saved is significant.

Yes, the locals at whitecliffs did not want solar power initially.
It was the most economic method though. Now the locals are more than happy with it.
With virtually no running costs for a decade and good reliability , I'ld be pretty happy also.

Hi IQSRLOW,

Flow batteries last pretty much forever. They are used with a wind mill plant in Tassie.

Flow batteries are also scaleable. ie add more fluid resevoirs for more capacity to store more electrical energy .

The aussie company (Pinnacle) got caught up with a canadian company.  
Canada has no sembalance of company law.  They are pirates.
Possibly the worst deal I have ever seen an aussie  company make. They are idiots.

Given power storage methods (flow batteries) base load capacity is very possible.  

Lots of things are possible, but battery storage opens another can of environmental worms.

As it is, all we need is assistance to the existing system anyway, not a whole new thing. Even if renewables are assistance to base load, that is good and means many extra power stations  do not have to be built.

Assistance will only cover expanding population, it doesn't negate what we need to do now to reduce emissions. Nuclear can replace existing base load power that pumps it's waste into our atmosphere sooner.

Lots of losses occur the further power is transmitted.


Which is why renewables have their own sets of environmental problems. If sustainabilty is to be paramount then ALL inputs and outputs need to be weighed


By allocating renewable systems in more remote locations the energy saved is significant.

In some situations, but the major consumers of energy aren't in remote locations

Yes, the locals at whitecliffs did not want solar power initially.  
It was the most economic method though. Now the locals are more than happy with it.  
With virtually no running costs for a decade and good reliability , I'ld be pretty happy also.


It was the most economic method because they weren't able to connect to the grid. Whitecliff solar was shut down in 2004. The running costs as well as the infrastructure were significant and inefficient

Geat topic,


Could it be we will be forced to take Nuclear power on regardless of the threats to our environment?

Because none of the alternatives have been explored or developed--for whatever reason.

Renewable energies are capable of supplying base load power.

No they aren't

Yes they are. It's just a matter of what we are willing to pay, not technology.  

One big side of this which people seem to be missing is demand management via price signals. The two major parties have a tendency to predict future demand based on current prices and to assume we should build more expensive options based on the demand when electricity is cheap. We should be jacking up the prices first, the building nuclear or renewable energy plants after society has adjusted to the higher prices and indicated with their actions that they still want more power, as opposed to say, just consuming a bit less so we don't have to build new plants.

It is also not the government's role to select between solar electric, wind, solar thermal etc. The industry for these is well established. All they have to do is offer the right price for the product (electricity).

How does a flow battery work? How energy efficient is it? How cost efficient is it?

Could it be we will be forced to take Nuclear power on regardless of the threats to our environment?

I suspect that it may be better than coal, hence our 'next best choice' in cost terms. However there are still no long term waste storage facilities in the world that are running. Until then we won't know how much it really costs and a lot of the 'economy' of nuclear is down to letting our descendants deal with the waste.

Yes, higher pricing willl dampen demand.  
With insulation and solar panels/wind turbines on selected houses/premises I believe effective demand would be significantly reduced.
Overall it must be  a "more economic" alternative then building bigger nuclear plants to encourage greater demand.

Probably the market forces do select the generation method.
Jack Green Limited supply ONLY renewable power. If consumers demand that, it will be supplied.

Flow batteries have 2 containers of different liquid chemicals. The liquids are pumped into the "battery".
The combining of the chemicals allow current to be drawn off. When it is recharged I think the chemicals regain their original properties. It was developed by Uni of NSW (I think).
The mistake was to give it away to an aussie company. They did noting with it, canadians stole the rights to it worldwide, except for in Auss and New zealand.  
Never do business with anything remotely related to canada. That is the business side of it.

Very efficient, the chemicals can be used indefinitely. capacity can be changed by adding (or removing) extra drums to contain the chemicals.

Most of the costs of non renewable power are not paid for by anyone.

Most of the costs of non renewable power are not paid for by anyone.

You mean the 'negative externalities'? ie the environmental and social costs?

Costs of non renewables are ... hhhmhmm eg


In the oil industry, they claim they are producers of oil. The oil is already there, they just tap down to it, take that they want. They don't strictly "produce" anything.

Then we are charged for "disposing" of the old oil . I didn't make it ! They "made" it.
Why should I have to pay, it is their product.
They also don't pay for the polluting that goes on in the manufacturing of it, the road deaths it brings.

yes, I guess social and environmental.

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2007 at 7:16pm:

Renewable energies are capable of supplying base load power. No they aren't Yes they are. It's just a matter of what we are willing to pay, not technology.

I didn't figure you for being a simpleton.

No..they aren't. Not on a large scale, not without associated costs to the environment, not without significant infrastructure costs and associated problems and not without either directly or indirectly increasing damage to the environment...which brings us back to square one in trying to replace coal fired base load power.

"Associated problems"--there is not one energy source Nuclear, renewable or other wise that doesnt have associated problems, so please tell me where you get your expert information from IQSRLOW?.Youd never get away with generalisations like that in Cracker. You'd need to back up your source as you know.

I dont see its necessary to get your "point" across with demeaning descriptions like 'simpleton'-We dont work like that in here.

wrote on Apr 29^th, 2007 at 10:24pm:

"Associated problems"--there is not one energy source Nuclear, renewable or other wise that doesnt have associated problems, so please tell me where you get your expert information from IQSRLOW?.Youd never get away with generalisations like that in Cracker. You'd need to back up your source as you know mel/scaly. I dont see its necessary to get your "point" across with demeaning descriptions like 'simpleton'-We dont work like that in here.

This 'Mel' character, you keep harping on about must be one helluva good bloke. I like him already and I've never even interacted with him. I have no idea what 'Cracker' is either.

I only gathered the 'simpleton' comment from an observation of his simple solution coupled with surrounding himself with other, more obvious simpletons

"

This 'Mel' character, you keep harping "
---not fooling anyone --sorry mel

'Fooling' would require some effort on my part. You seem to be more than capable of handling that all by yourself.

Hi  IQSRLOW,

How are you ? You are right, White cliffs was no longer the sole form of power for white cliffs now.  
I was unaware of that.

From what I read , It is still connected to the grid and supplying power but is also supplemented by the grid. Which is strange. Or it supplements the grid, whichever way they want it.
The economics of running the grid there made the solar power economic in the first place. To set up sloar power, use it for many years, THEN run in the power lines is obviously uneconomic.

Wonder if the coal industry applied any pressure on this decision ?  :-)

In the oil industry, they claim they are producers of oil. The oil is already there, they just tap down to it, take that they want. They don't strictly "produce" anything.

You could make the same argument about renewables or any industry. It doesn't really matter though. The social and environmental costs dod matter.

No..they aren't. Not on a large scale, not without associated costs to the environment, not without significant infrastructure costs and associated problems and not without either directly or indirectly increasing damage to the environment...which brings us back to square one in trying to replace coal fired base load power.

They can produce base load power, it just costs more. They do have some environmental impact, but it is far less than that of coal, even on a large scale. Everything we do has some impact, but renewable energy is pretty far down on the list. It basically comes down to cost.

wrote on Apr 29^th, 2007 at 1:30am:

Lots of things are possible, but battery storage opens another can of environmental worms.

As opposed to the 'environmentally sound' practice of concentrating radioactive isotopes, dumping their excess heat energy into the atmosphere and oceans and then burying them in the ground? Substances with a half life measured in millennia?


Quote:

Which is why renewables have their own sets of environmental problems. If sustainabilty is to be paramount then ALL inputs and outputs need to be weighed

Exactly, and renewables use more environmentally sound principles than nuclear power.


Quote:

No..they aren't. Not on a large scale, not without associated costs to the environment, not without significant infrastructure costs and associated problems and not without either directly or indirectly increasing damage to the environment...which brings us back to square one in trying to replace coal fired base load power.

Nuclear costs exactly the same as wind and solar plants, but while wind and solar are ready and IN USE (south australia - 20% renewables TODAY, look it up) nuclear is not ready, nor will it be any time soon. There will always be costs with energy production and this is why freedivers point is the most important, we need to pay more for power. This is the only way to send the right message to the consumer.

As opposed to the 'environmentally sound' practice of concentrating radioactive isotopes, dumping their excess heat energy into the atmosphere and oceans and then burying them in the ground? Substances with a half life measured in millennia?

Strawman anyone?

Go look at the chemical composition of modern batteries as well as their lifespan and while your doing that, have a look at all the battery recycling plants within Australia.

Exactly, and renewables use more environmentally sound principles than nuclear power.

Which principles would those be?

Nuclear costs exactly the same as wind and solar plants, but... is less reliable and would require land clearing and reduction of biodiversity on a grand scale to be able to service metropolitan areas. 20% is not base load power

wrote on Apr 30^th, 2007 at 7:33pm:

wrote on Apr 29th, 2007 at 1:30am: Lots of things are possible, but battery storage opens another can of environmental worms. As opposed to the 'environmentally sound' practice of concentrating radioactive isotopes, dumping their excess heat energy into the atmosphere and oceans and then burying them in the ground? Substances with a half life measured in millennia? Quote: Which is why renewables have their own sets of environmental problems. If sustainabilty is to be paramount then ALL inputs and outputs need to be weighed Exactly, and renewables use more environmentally sound principles than nuclear power. [quote] No..they aren't. Not on a large scale, not without associated costs to the environment, not without significant infrastructure costs and associated problems and not without either directly or indirectly increasing damage to the environment...which brings us back to square one in trying to replace coal fired base load power.

Nuclear costs exactly the same as wind and solar plants, but while wind and solar are ready and IN USE (south australia - 20% renewables TODAY, look it up) nuclear is not ready, nor will it be any time soon. There will always be costs with energy production and this is why freedivers point is the most important, we need to pay more for power. This is the only way to send the right message to the consumer.[/quote]


Exactly zoso. Freediver made some very good points.

And IQ..care to back that up? for once?

Do you do anything but jump into a debate with nothing to add except divulge your lack of intellect and knowledge on any issue?

  Its clear IQ, you have no real understanding of this subject-you Google the odd blog or 2 and cherrypick a few keywords that sound 'credible'..This does not substitute for an understanding of your subject and any knowledge based in experience as you pretend.

Beo was always telling you off for this.


 

Again, you persist with the paranoid delusions that I am someone that knows you or has been on another forum where you post your drivel.

I'm not who you think I am, and that should tell you something about yourself.

wrote on Apr 30^th, 2007 at 8:50pm:

Again, you persist with the paranoid delusions that I am someone that knows you or has been on another forum where you post your drivel. I'm not who you think I am, and that should tell you something about yourself.

excuse me...what are you talking about?Now whos delusional?

Beo was always telling you off for this.  

You are delusional sweetheart...I suggest you get some professional help

Both of you. Discuss the topic, not each other.

Some interesting points about why nuclear is not the best option for Australia:

tonight: Global Warming on the ABC

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1177892540

wrote on Apr 30^th, 2007 at 8:30pm:

As opposed to the 'environmentally sound' practice of concentrating radioactive isotopes, dumping their excess heat energy into the atmosphere and oceans and then burying them in the ground? Substances with a half life measured in millennia? Strawman anyone?

A straw man you say? So are you saying that nuclear power produces no net pollution? Or are you saying that the net pollution from nuclear power is less than that of wind and solar?


Quote:

Go look at the chemical composition of modern batteries as well as their lifespan and while your doing that, have a look at all the battery recycling plants within Australia.

Modern batteries are not made of radioactive isostopes of Uranium, or the radioactive by products that these isotopes break down into.


Quote:

Exactly, and renewables use more environmentally sound principles than nuclear power. Which principles would those be?

Use of solar energy instead of either stored chemical potential energy or nuclear energy. Either of which results in excess heat energy being dumped into the atmosphere and oceans that would not otherwise have been dumped into those sinks. By using solar (wave and wind energy are both manifestations of solar energy) you cannot put more energy into the earth system that would not already have been there.

The mining of uranium is more intensive than that of coal, steel or silicone, and the enrichment process is more energy intensive than the refining of either coal, steel or silicone. On top of that we have no infrastructure to enrich uranium in this country meaning some would need to be installed, again more energy and resource requirements, not to mention the fact that this puts the nuclear option somewhere in the distant future at best. There is an already existing renewables industry in this country.


Quote:

Nuclear costs exactly the same as wind and solar plants, but... is less reliable and would require land clearing and reduction of biodiversity on a grand scale to be able to service metropolitan areas. 20% is not base load power

Can you say desert? Can you say ocean?

Renewables are perfectly capable of base load power. Can you specify exactly what it is that makes you think they are not? From an engineering perspective the only roadblock to base load production from renewables is cost, there is no physical restraint that prevents them from being able to provide base load. Read what the others have said on flow batteries for one (already providing 100% of king island's power hooked up to wind plants) developments in fuel cell technology is another. Watch this space as fuel cells will hopefully be entering the market soon (provided they aren't killed off by existing energy monopolies), there have been many advancements in this area of late, you don't need to use pure hydrogen for example, ethanol is sufficient. We know that stored chemical potential energy is the most efficient way to transport energy, much more efficient than power lines, all you need to do is convert energy generated by renewables to a stored chemical potential form, as flow batteries and fuel cells do, and the problem of reliability goes away. Not that reliability of wind and sunshine is actually a problem in this country to begin with.

The net pollution from establishing base load sufficient wind, solar, flow batteries and implementing these technologies on a large scale has not been fully investigated.

Modern batteries have their own set of environmental problems. Ignoring these and pushing the tired uranium scare-mongering doesn't make them go away.

Can you say desert? Can you say ocean?
Power transmission presents a problem for this scenario

The fact is, the govt and the opposition have both recognised that renewables will only ever make up a fraction of the power requirements needed for the Australian population. Anything else is only a pipedream at this point in time. That's not to say it won't be in the future, but they cannot produce the demand that industry requires.

Even the international energy community recognises that renewables are only good for 15-20% of glabal energy.

Perhaps you know something they don't?

The net pollution from establishing base load sufficient wind, solar, flow batteries and implementing these technologies on a large scale has not been fully investigated.

Not by you. The thing about these technologies is that they are largely modular. You double the capacity, you double the pollution. It is still far less than coal on a per unit energy output basis.

Power transmission presents a problem for this scenario

That's what power lines are for.

The fact is, the govt and the opposition have both recognised that renewables will only ever make up a fraction of the power requirements needed for the Australian population.

99% is a fraction

Even the international energy community recognises that renewables are only good for 15-20% of glabal energy.

This is considering a tradeoff between emissions and the marginal cost. It is nothing inherent to the technologies. It just gets a bit more expensive for higher percentage because you need more storage or you need to adapt to a more variable supply. That percentage is based on an assumption about what people will pay, but if it costs more they will pay more.

wrote on May 1^st, 2007 at 1:03pm:

The net pollution from establishing base load sufficient wind, solar, flow batteries and implementing these technologies on a large scale has not been fully investigated.

Neither has nuclear. Howards plan for 25 nuclear plants will amount to some 10% of our power consumption...hardly base load.

You are also forgetting that climate change is not just about CO2, dumping vast quantities of waste thermal energy into the biosphere is still a massive problem that nuclear plants do not solve.


Quote:

Modern batteries have their own set of environmental problems. Ignoring these and pushing the tired uranium scare-mongering doesn't make them go away.

Lead acid batteries are one of the most successfully recycled goods we have. Either way, battery waste is not on par with radioactive waste in terms of cost of disposal, or future environmental impacts.

There is no need to scare monger about the dangers of radioactive pollution, it is simply uneconomical to deal with.


Quote:

Can you say desert? Can you say ocean? Power transmission presents a problem for this scenario

Not if you convert the electricity directly into stored chemical energy. This is the way we should be heading anyway, power grids have their own problems.

Neither would it be a problem if we encouraged a decentralisation of power supply (as should be the case for water too). But oh no don't ask anybody to take responsibility for their own existence now...


Quote:

The fact is, the govt and the opposition have both recognised that renewables will only ever make up a fraction of the power requirements needed for the Australian population. Anything else is only a pipedream at this point in time. That's not to say it won't be in the future, but they cannot produce the demand that industry requires.

And neither will nuclear... seeing a pattern yet?


Quote:

Even the international energy community recognises that renewables are only good for 15-20% of glabal energy.

At current levels of consumption, and current levels of technology. This is why it is important to make people respect the resources they consume by giving them a decent signal through price. This is also why it is important to create a market for these technologies so we can make the engineering advancements that are being stifled right now by this white elephant of a debate over nuclear. Howard announced more money to be spent on chaplains in schools last year than his much touted solar energy funding, and we are looking at investing many more millions of dollars into nuclear plants that won't even come close to base load and even then not for 20 years. Renewables may not be economic for base load TODAY, but TODAY they can do what nuclear can only do in the future. If we just put the money into technology that is ON THE MARKET, made by AUSTRALIAN companies we could have the sort of figures Howard is talking about within 5 years, not 20. And an expanding market for renewables that will create demand for innovation... oh no no, forget that, nuclear is coming...one day...I think...

Coal is a non renewable resource, uranium is a non renewable resource. Ziggy was on the TV the other night and said we have maybe 100 years of uranium as a power source in the world...great plan for sustainabilty there.

Howards plan for 25 nuclear plants will amount to some 10% of our power consumption...hardly base load.

Actually, that's not what baseload means. It refers to the consistency of supply. You can supply 1% of the power and call it baseload if it can be on all the time. We need a large chunk of our supply to be highly reliable. You can get this with a distributed network of renewables of various types and some storage and over capacity. Hydro electric is a good storage option in the sense that it is better than base load. You can switch it on on demand. It can make up for some of the unreliability of renewables without the cost of batteries.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1177892540

Fossil fuel-burning industries receive up to $10 billion a year in taxpayers' money, a study has found.

The University of Technology Sydney analysis of energy and transport subsidies released on Monday said 96 per cent of those government funds went to coal, oil and gas companies in 2005-06.

In light of its findings, author Dr Chris Reidy questioned the willingness of federal and state governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions caused by fossil fuels.

Quote:

Actually, that's not what baseload means. It refers to the consistency of supply.

Ok fair enough but we need more than 10% of supply to be consistent...

The limitation on our electrical system is during peak hours.
Having renewablly charged batteries "onhand" to turn on during peak times alleviates this limitation.
Coal stations do not have the ability to rapidly change their suppply load. Batteries do.

Take some customers off the grid and charge batteries all by renewable means.
That gives us breathing space to look at alternatives.
I don't accept the "need" for 25 nuclear stations in auss to be in addition to what we have now.
Follow the money trail. Who wins with nuclear power stattion ?
Construction of new plants, mining for uranuium, refining uranium, running of new plants, shutting down plants when finished .
England has put aside 30 billion pounds (A poor memory figure from me, but a HUGE amount) to shut down some of theirs. They don't know how much it will cost, but they have earmarked a massive amount.

makes solar panels and wind mills look a safe bet to me.

Coal stations do not have the ability to rapidly change their suppply load. Batteries do.

The batteries are a separate issue. You could combine batteries with any other source, including coal. However they add significantly to the cost. So far we have found that it is cheaper to have generating facilities capable of producing the peak demand. With renewables this may change. It may not. It may be cheaper just just have massive overcapacity. The 'rated' capacity of wind turbines are what they will produce the majority of the time in the given location and is usually well below what they actually produce.

---

State stores nuclear waste 'in car park'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/State-stores-nuclear-waste-in-car-park/2007/06/03/1180809313168.html

One state is keeping nuclear waste in a shipping container parked in a hospital car park, Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane says.

As the government steps up its campaign to push nuclear energy in Australia, the debate about nuclear waste has also stepped up.

Mr Macfarlane said the states, which oppose housing a nuclear waste dump, needed to be frank about what they were doing with their waste.

I found this in an investment spiel;

The world’s worst fuel shortage has driven the price of one commodity through the roof… and it’s not oil…

The yellow stuff that drives almost every reactor in the world – uranium – is under attack on three sides… While world leaders are pledging to triple the number of nuclear power plants worldwide over the next few years, the reactors already in use have eaten up more than half the world’s uranium reserves.

Add that to the explosively growing energy demand of countries like China, and you have a supply gap that dwarfs the wildest dreams of the most successful oil or coal investors. In fact, worldwide uranium demand already exceeds supply by 139%. Mines may never be able to crank up production high enough...

This has driven prices of uranium from $10.10 per pound in 2003 to over $56 today… a rise of 454% in three years. And a few stocks are poised to jump as the fuel’s price shoots higher.

You’ll get all the urgent details of the uranium boom, including…

The uranium investment that’s projected to grow from $72 million to $119 BILLION in less than two years...
Why the world’s commercial uranium reserves could be totally gone before mines can produce enough fuel to run the reactors we already have...
The “new” nuclear power plant that will turn penny stocks into blue chips and shoot larger companies The world’s worst fuel shortage has driven the price of one commodity through the roof… and it’s not oil…

The yellow stuff that drives almost every reactor in the world – uranium – is under attack on three sides… While world leaders are pledging to triple the number of nuclear power plants worldwide over the next few years, the reactors already in use have eaten up more than half the world’s uranium reserves.

Add that to the explosively growing energy demand of countries like China, and you have a supply gap that dwarfs the wildest dreams of the most successful oil or coal investors. In fact, worldwide uranium demand already exceeds supply by 139%. Mines may never be able to crank up production high enough...

This has driven prices of uranium from $10.10 per pound in 2003 to over $56 today… a rise of 454% in three years. And a few stocks are poised to jump as the fuel’s price shoots higher.

You’ll get all the urgent details of the uranium boom, including…

The uranium investment that’s projected to grow from $72 million to $119 BILLION in less than two years...
Why the world’s commercial uranium reserves could be totally gone before mines can produce enough fuel to run the reactors we already have...
The “new” nuclear power plant that will turn penny stocks into blue chips and shoot larger companies through the moon… through the moon…
______________________________________________________________________________

http://www.investmentu.net/ppc/t4uranium.cfm?kw=X300G533


If the stock market prices are up as dramatically as what's said in above quote a lot of people will go broke if we don't go nuclear.

I was particularly interested in the prophecy of us running out of uranium. Does anyone know how true that is?

You always here the same thing about any mined product, including metals. The 'known reserves' will run out soon, which is completely true. The thing is, people don't bother looking for it if we have more than 5 or 10 years of supply available.

As for people going broke, that's the nature of the stock market. If you want to gamble on an industry as politically volatile as nuclear, you are taking a big risk and it is not the government's place to bail you out if things go pear shaped. 5 years ago nuclear was on the out in the west - no new plants and old ones getting decommissioned. Now it is coming back in again, but things could change overnight.

Another major cause of the high price of ore may be Australia's policy on uranium mining.

It really depends on who the shareholders are I suppose. If Murdoch had a large interest in Uranium his papers would promote Uranium and Nuclear.

Power means Influence.

link to other thread: nuclear report misleading http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1164173429

Who is behind the push by the government for nuclear power?  Why the rush and how much of taxpayers' money is going to be invested to initially prop this industry up?

Maybe the whole government has sold out to the Macquarie bank. [smiley=wink.gif]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Aussies-embracing-nuclear-power-poll/2007/03/06/1172943389296.html

Concerns about climate change have swung Australian opinion in favour of nuclear power for the first time, a poll shows.

A Newspoll published in The Australian newspaper reveals support for nuclear power has surged 10 percentage points to 45 per cent in four months, outstripping opposition, which has plummeted 10 points to 40 per cent.

But a vast majority - 66 per cent - are against having a nuclear power station in their local area.

The key to the shift appears to have been Prime Minister John Howard's repeatedly linking nuclear power to strategies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the newspaper reports.

The survey asked whether respondents supported the development of nuclear power industry in Australia as one of a range of energy solutions to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and whether they would personally be in favour or against a nuclear power station being built in your local area.

---

Don't go nuclear, says nuke waste expert

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Dont-go-nuclear-says-nuke-waste-expert/2007/03/14/1173722540045.html

Australia could face serious environmental problems if it went ahead with a nuclear power industry, a visiting American expert has warned.

Kevin Kamps, a nuclear waste specialist at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington DC, said marine life would suffer if superheated water used to cool nuclear reactors built on the coast was released back into the sea.

Mr Kamps said there could be no safe disposal of nuclear waste.

In the US, the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, had so far cost $US9 billion ($A11.53 billion) and 25 years work to set up.

"The earliest they can open it is 2021, but it's looking more and more likely it may never open now, so it's back to square one with our dilemma," Mr Kamps said.

But the US experience had been that marine life was seriously affected by coast-based nuclear plants, Mr Kamps said.

"Even large animals like endangered sea turtles are sucked into these cooling systems," he said.

"In one year, 933 endangered sea turtles were sucked into a reactor in Florida.

---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Nuclear-bill-fails-to-pass-upper-house/2007/04/19/1176696996514.html

Nuclear bill fails to pass upper house

A bill that would have required a statewide voter plebiscite before a nuclear power plant could be built in Victoria has failed to pass through the upper house.

Energy Minister Peter Batchelor said he was outraged the upper house's three Greens members did not vote for the bill, ensuring it was lost 18 to 20 votes.

Liberal MPs plus members of the Nationals and the Democratic Labor Party also voted against the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Amendment (Plebiscite) Bill 2007.

"As energy minister I am outraged at what the Greens have done in preventing the Victorian people from having a say on whether a nuclear power plant is built in this state," Mr Batchelor told AAP.

"This has made is easier for John Howard or Peter Costello to build a nuclear power plant or nuclear waste facility in Victoria."

But Greens upper house MP Greg Barber said the bill was deficient because it did not allow the parliament to set a plebiscite question.

He also pointed to next week's ALP national conference, where overturning Labor's no new uranium mine policy will be on the table.

"The most important vote is not the one we had in parliament today, it's the one (Premier) Steve Bracks will cast as a delegate to the ALP National Conference on uranium policy," Mr Barber said.

---

Nuclear is part of climate solution: PM

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Nuclear-is-part-of-climate-solution-PM/2007/04/22/1177180462297.html

The Labor Party needs to accept nuclear power is part of the solution to global warming, Prime Minister John Howard says.

His comments come after Labor's resources spokesman Anthony Albanese earlier said he would push for the ALP's no new mines policy to be retained.

---

ALP 'not damaged by nuclear debate'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/ALP-not-damaged-by-nuclear-debate/2007/04/22/1177180462137.html

Labor's water spokesman Anthony Albanese denies he is being disloyal to party leader Kevin Rudd by opposing his stance on uranium mines.

Mr Albanese will push for the no new mines policy to be retained at the ALP's upcoming national conference in Sydney, putting him at odds with Mr Rudd.

---

Rann's opposition to nuclear 'ignorant'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Ranns-opposition-to-nuclear-ignorant/2007/04/23/1177180522426.html

The South Australian opposition has branded Premier Mike Rann's opposition to nuclear power ignorant and short-sighted.

He said Mr Rann's stand on nuclear power was at odds with his lobbying for federal Labor to drop its long-standing no new uranium mines policy.

Mr Hamilton-Smith said the SA premier had instigated a scare campaign over nuclear power when his only argument against it appeared to be the lack of a business case.

But the Liberal leader said business was in the best position to make such judgments.

Uranium mining support growing: poll

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Uranium-mining-support-growing-poll/2007/05/16/1178995191121.html

Australians are adapting quickly to the age of uranium expansion, with almost 60 per cent of people now supporting yellowcake exports, says the head of a nationwide lobby group.

Mainstream Australia was turning to the nuclear fuel alternative, the executive director of the Australian Uranium Association, Michael Angwin, told the second Australia's Uranium Conference in Darwin.

People recognised its environmental credentials as an energy source, its economic benefits and the abundance of uranium in Australia, he told more than 300 delegates.

Quoting statistics from an ANOP opinion poll commissioned by the association, Mr Angwin said 50 per cent of Australians supported the uranium mining industry.

---

Nuclear 'cheaper' than fossil fuels

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/nuclear-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels/2007/05/21/1179601321683.html

Pricing carbon through an eventual emissions trading scheme will raise the price of fossil fuels to make nuclear energy a cheaper and cleaner electricity alternative, says the government's nuclear expert Dr Ziggy Switkowski.

Dr Switkowski told a Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) function that nuclear energy for Australia was cheap when costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions were taken into account.

"If fossil fuels are properly costed for their emissions, pollution and particularly greenhouse gases, it doesn't take much of a cost for greenhouse gas ... to close the gap.

"It wouldn't take more than a few tens of dollars per tonne of carbon dioxide per year, which is in the range of what people are thinking, to make nuclear in Australia lower cost than fossil fuels and demonstrably cleaner."

"In the 2020s, nuclear energy will be the most cost effective and cleanest form of base-load electricity that Australia has on option to consider," Dr Switkowski said.

However, director of the West Australian Conservation Council Chris Tallentine said the cost of storing nuclear waste needed to be factored into the equation.

"We need to factor in those sorts of things, when we do the cost comparisons, and when that is done properly, we'll even actually see, even with the introduction of emissions trading ... the price differential between uranium and nuclear power will be much higher than renewables," he said.

---

Nuclear reactors possible in Vic: Bracks

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Nuclear-reactors-possible-in-Vic-Bracks/2007/05/30/1180205295801.html

Victoria would not be able to stop a nuclear reactor being built on commonwealth land whether the state wanted it or not, Premier Steve Bracks said.

---

Nuclear not the climate cure: US report

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Nuclear-not-the-climate-cure-US-report/2007/06/15/1181414500963.html

Nuclear power would only curb climate change by expanding worldwide at the rate it grew from 1981 to 1990, its busiest decade, and keep up that rate for half a century, a report released in the US says.

While the report also supported storing US nuclear waste at power plants until the long-stalled Yucca Mountain repository opens, 10 dumps the size of Yucca Mountain would be needed to store the extra generated waste by the needed nuclear generation boom.

That outlook was too optimistic in light of how many new nuclear plants are currently on the drawing board, the report said.

---

Fed govt urged reveal more nuke details

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Fed-govt-urged-reveal-more-nuke-details/2007/06/14/1181414465439.html

The federal government is under pressure to reveal more details of its nuclear plans after admitting discussions are underway on building a uranium enrichment plant.

A company called Nuclear Fuel Australia is believed to be studying the feasibility of a $2.5 billion plant which could be operational by 2015.

---

Canada approves burying of nuclear waste

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Canada-approves-burying-of-nuclear-waste/2007/06/15/1181414495801.html

Canada says it has approved the idea of burying nuclear waste deep in the ground at a single location, a proposal that green activists say would be unsafe.

---

MP ducks queries on Qld nuclear reactor

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/MP-ducks-queries-on-Qld-nuclear-reactor/2007/06/28/1182624066117.html

A senior federal minister has ducked questions regarding the location of a nuclear reactor in Queensland while talking up a federally-backed plan for the energy source.

Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane on Thursday told a Queensland Media Club luncheon nuclear energy was a key component of climate change technologies as the only zero emission baseload electricity source.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Japan-quake-triggers-nuclear-plant-leak/2007/07/17/1184559782193.html

More than 12,000 people prepared for a second night in evacuation centres in northwest Japan on Tuesday after an earthquake the previous day killed nine people, injured more than 1,000 and triggered radioactive leaks from a nuclear plant.

A small fire and a leak of 1,200 litres of water containing radioactive materials at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (TEPCO) Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant - the world's largest - reignited fears about nuclear safety in a country reliant on atomic power for one-third of its electricity.

Hundreds of homes were damaged and water, gas and electricity supplies were cut by the 6.8 magnitude quake that hit Niigata prefecture on Monday morning.

Nine elderly people were killed and one person was missing, a Niigata prefecture official said. In hard-hit Kashiwazaki City, a team of orange-clad rescue workers with five sniffer dogs said they were calling off operations for the day.

We are not geologically stable either - yet we can look forward to a couple of dozen nuclear reactors dotted along the east coast in the next decade.

I think we're a lot more stable than japan.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/japan-nuclear-plant-to-stay-closed/2007/07/18/1184559862726.html

A quake-hit Japanese city insisted that the world's biggest nuclear power plant remain closed after a tremor caused radiation leaks, as the top UN nuclear watchdog said the utility had misjudged seismic risks.

Quote:

I think we're a lot more stable than japan

Yes we are more stable than Japan, but we can still be called unstable.  Australia is not the right place for nuclear reactors, but politicians and businessmen tend to play it down.


Quote:

Australia is seismically active and earthquakes pose a substantial risk as demonstrated by the deadly magnitude 5.6 Newcastle earthquake of 1989 (click here for a list of some Australian earthquakes). When compared to plate margin regions such as California or Japan, the rate of earthquakes is lower, but relative to other intraplate regions, Australia's earthquake activity is moderate to high (click here to see the global seismicity map). The level of the earthquake hazard of Australia's more active regions is roughly comparable to that of well known seismic zones in central USA. This is around 5 to 10 times lower than in California measured in engineering terms (horizontal ground acceleration with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years). The largest earthquake that can occur in Australia is not yet known but is expected to be above Richter Magnitude 7, roughly similar to large Californian earthquakes. For example, the 1988 Tennant Creek earthquake had a Richter magnitude around 6.9, slightly larger than the 1994 Northridge earthquake near Los Angeles (Mw=6.7) that resulted in $US 15 billion and cost 57 lives. Earthquakes offshore southeastern Australia have exceeded ML=7 and different magnitudes calculations for the onshore Meeberrie WA earthquake in 1941 ranged from 6.9 to 7.2.

http://www.quakes.uq.edu.au/seis_maps/

Howard-Bush nuclear deal puts Australia at risk - Greens
20/07/07

The Prime Minister's plan to sign a nuclear pact with President Bush risks Australia's future security and environmental wellbeing, Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.

"A thirty percent reallocation of current electricity supplies through energy efficiency, to meet future industrial, retail and domestic needs is a much safer, cleaner, cheaper option to dangerous nuclear power," Senator Brown said.

"Mr Howard's proposed pact with President Bush will anger neighbours like Indonesia and Malaysia and foster nuclear installations in our neighbourhood. The massive radioactive leak in Tokyo Electrics' giant nuclear plant this week shows how dangerous nuclear power stations on Java could be."

"The Howard move will inevitably bring Australia under pressure to become a global nuclear waste dump. It will increase terrorists' focus on Australia and will create a direct incentive for nuclear power plants to be built near our major cities, like Sydney and Melbourne," Senator Brown said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Selling-uranium-to-India-is-wrong-Rudd/2007/08/15/1186857562643.html

The federal government's reported decision to sell uranium to India is wrong, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says.

The National Security Committee of federal cabinet on Tuesday decided to allow uranium shipments to India despite the fact that it is not a signatory to the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), News Ltd reports.

Under the deal, Australian inspectors will be allowed to check that the uranium is not used for military purposes.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 7:08pm:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Selling-uranium-to-India-is-wrong-Rudd/2007/08/15/1186857562643.html The federal government's reported decision to sell uranium to India is wrong, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says. The National Security Committee of federal cabinet on Tuesday decided to allow uranium shipments to India despite the fact that it is not a signatory to the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), News Ltd reports. Under the deal, Australian inspectors will be allowed to check that the uranium is not used for military purposes.

At this stage I think its a bad idea..who know if India can be trusted?

oceanz wrote on Aug 16^th, 2007 at 3:47pm:

At this stage I think its a bad idea..who know if India can be trusted?

We can trust them more than China, to whom we sell uranium.

Has China signed the non-proliferation treaty?

freediver wrote on Aug 16^th, 2007 at 5:17pm:

Has China signed the non-proliferation treaty?

Could you trust a Communist country which is running out of room?

I trust the treaty. They invaded Iraq over it. There's not much else you can do anyway.

freediver wrote on Aug 16^th, 2007 at 5:26pm:

I trust the treaty. They invaded Iraq over it. There's not much else you can do anyway.

All we can do is wait and see. No point in us worrying about it. we have no say.

Uranium sale to fuel arms race: Imran

PAKISTANI cricketer turned politician Imran Khan has predicted that the Howard Government's decision to sell uranium to India will spark a new arms race on the subcontinent.

Khan, who leads the Movement for Justice party, told SBS Television last night that Australia's decision to export uranium would encourage generals in his country to spend more on weapons to counter India's access to nuclear fuel.

Australia has decided to sell uranium to India, but not Pakistan, because Foreign Minister Alexander Downer argues that India has a good record on weapons non-proliferation.

Khan said last night that Australia should have been even-handed in its decision on uranium exports. He said funds in Pakistan would now be diverted from human development to arms development, "and we will have a sort of arms race in the subcontinent which poor people in our countries cannot afford".

Asked whether Australia should have made the decision, he replied: "Absolutely not."

In comments that defy the upbeat assessments from Canberra that selling uranium to Delhi will make the world safer, India's chief scientific adviser, Rajagopala Chidambaram, said Delhi would decide which of its nuclear plants to open to inspectors and which would remain closed off.

In an interview with The Hindu newspaper, Mr Chidambaram said: "Whatever reactors we put under safeguards will be decided at India's discretion."

He said India had no intention to quarantine its military program from its civilian program because nuclear scientists would work across both programs.

"We are not firewalling between the civil and military programs in terms of manpower or personnel. That's not on," Dr Chidambaram said.

His comments followed the nuclear co-operation agreement struck between Washington and Delhi. Dr Chidambaram was a key player in those negotiations.

That agreement will form a template for the Howard Government, which plans to pursue its own safeguards agreement to sell uranium to the subcontinent.

Mr Downer said selling uranium to India would make the world safer because its nuclear plants would be subject to international inspections for the first time.

He said there was no way the uranium could be used for military purposes.

Last night Mr Downer told the ABC that United Nations inspectors would ensure the uranium remained in the civilian program.

But the comments of Dr Chidambaram reveal that India will retain discretion over which plants are in the net and which remain closed to the rest of the world.

He also said new fast-breeder reactors should stay outside inspections. "Now, anything which requires advanced R&D, we don't want to slow it down by having someone looking over their shoulder," he said.

Australia's decision is a groundbreaking shift in foreign policy, which had prohibited the sale of uranium to countries outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Labor leader Kevin Rudd condemned the decision yesterday.

"It is a very bad development indeed when we have the possibility of the Government of Australia stepping outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and saying it's OK to sell uranium (to a country) which isn't a signatory," he said.

Greens leader Bob Brown said: "Australia is directly fuelling the production of nuclear weapons for a country which will soon have rockets that will reach Australia."

As far as im concerned, India is no threat to Australia outside of Cricket.




He He, i now have 1821 posts [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Coalition-split-on-nuclear-power-Labor/2007/08/20/1187462125227.html

The coalition is split over plans to create a nuclear power industry in Australia, Labor says.

The government says nuclear power should be considered as an option for future energy supplies.

But Nationals candidate Dr Sue Page, who will contest the federal seat of Richmond in northern NSW in the coming election, said the junior coalition party was committed to opposing nuclear development.

Opposition spokesman for infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, said Dr Page's position represented a rupture in the coalition policy.

"The coalition is split to the extent that it's arguing that you can have 25 nuclear reactors but they won't actually be located anywhere," Mr Albanese told ABC radio.

---

India uranium deal 'to have safeguards'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/India-uranium-deal-to-have-safeguards/2007/08/21/1187462231578.html

Uranium sold by Australia to India would not be available for use in weapons, Treasurer Peter Costello said.

Prime Minister John Howard last week announced it had reached a conditional agreement to sell uranium to India although it is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

The exports to India will be subject to strict conditions, including guarantees uranium would only be used for power generation and regular inspections.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group will also have to approve the agreement.

---

China searches for 'missing' uranium

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/China-searches-for-missing-uranium/2007/08/24/1187462495685.html

Eight kilograms of radioactive uranium is missing in China, delaying the verdict in a trial of four men charged with attempting to sell it on the black market, state media says.

A court in Guangzhou, capital of China's southern province of Guangdong, heard the four tried to sell the material, which can be used in making nuclear weapons, between 2005 and January 2007, the China Daily said.

The men were arrested in January after a potential buyer in Hong Kong reported them to the authorities, the paper said.

However, despite having the four men in custody, police were unable to locate the uranium.

"The men claimed it had been lost because it had been moved around so much between potential buyers," the paper said.

---

N-power without weapons possible: Blix

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Npower-without-weapons-possible-Blix/2007/08/27/1188067000545.html

Former United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said he was in favour of nuclear power and believed it could be pursued at the same time as nuclear disarmament.

Speaking at the United Nations Association of Australia 2007 National Conference in Melbourne, Dr Blix said it was "a nonsense" that nuclear power and nuclear weapons were inextricably linked.

"You can have nuclear power without nuclear weapons," Dr Blix said.

"It's a question about the (political) will, and therefore the decisive thing is to create such a world where countries don't feel the need for nuclear weapons."

He said Australia's proposed uranium exports to India would not breach the international non-proliferation treaty.

enviro wrote on Jan 5^th, 2007 at 6:44am:

I found this in an investment spiel; The world’s worst fuel shortage has driven the price of one commodity through the roof… and it’s not oil… The yellow stuff that drives almost every reactor in the world – uranium – is under attack on three sides… While world leaders are pledging to triple the number of nuclear power plants worldwide over the next few years, the reactors already in use have eaten up more than half the world’s uranium reserves. Add that to the explosively growing energy demand of countries like China, and you have a supply gap that dwarfs the wildest dreams of the most successful oil or coal investors. In fact, worldwide uranium demand already exceeds supply by 139%. Mines may never be able to crank up production high enough... This has driven prices of uranium from $10.10 per pound in 2003 to over $56 today… a rise of 454% in three years. And a few stocks are poised to jump as the fuel’s price shoots higher. You’ll get all the urgent details of the uranium boom, including… The uranium investment that’s projected to grow from $72 million to $119 BILLION in less than two years... Why the world’s commercial uranium reserves could be totally gone before mines can produce enough fuel to run the reactors we already have... The “new” nuclear power plant that will turn penny stocks into blue chips and shoot larger companies The world’s worst fuel shortage has driven the price of one commodity through the roof… and it’s not oil… The yellow stuff that drives almost every reactor in the world – uranium – is under attack on three sides… While world leaders are pledging to triple the number of nuclear power plants worldwide over the next few years, the reactors already in use have eaten up more than half the world’s uranium reserves. Add that to the explosively growing energy demand of countries like China, and you have a supply gap that dwarfs the wildest dreams of the most successful oil or coal investors. In fact, worldwide uranium demand already exceeds supply by 139%. Mines may never be able to crank up production high enough... This has driven prices of uranium from $10.10 per pound in 2003 to over $56 today… a rise of 454% in three years. And a few stocks are poised to jump as the fuel’s price shoots higher. You’ll get all the urgent details of the uranium boom, including… The uranium investment that’s projected to grow from $72 million to $119 BILLION in less than two years... Why the world’s commercial uranium reserves could be totally gone before mines can produce enough fuel to run the reactors we already have... The “new” nuclear power plant that will turn penny stocks into blue chips and shoot larger companies through the moon… through the moon… ______________________________________________________________________________ http://www.investmentu.net/ppc/t4uranium.cfm?kw=X300G533 If the stock market prices are up as dramatically as what's said in above quote a lot of people will go broke if we don't go nuclear. I was particularly interested in the prophecy of us running out of uranium. Does anyone know how true that is?

-->that's an extremely interesting 2nd paragraph...can it be corroborated I wonder?

If the stock market prices are up as dramatically as what's said in above quote a lot of people will go broke if we don't go nuclear.
*********
Say that again!

mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2007 at 7:26pm:

Who is behind the push by the government for nuclear power?  Why the rush and how much of taxpayers' money is going to be invested to initially prop this industry up?

Good question...the truth is out there!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Aussies-embracing-nuclear-power-poll/2007/03/06/1172943389296.html

Concerns about climate change have swung Australian opinion in favour of nuclear power for the first time, a poll shows.

A Newspoll published in The Australian newspaper reveals support for nuclear power has surged 10 percentage points to 45 per cent in four months, outstripping opposition, which has plummeted 10 points to 40 per cent.

But a vast majority - 66 per cent - are against having a nuclear power station in their local area.

The key to the shift appears to have been Prime Minister John Howard's repeatedly linking nuclear power to strategies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the newspaper reports.

The survey asked whether respondents supported the development of nuclear power industry in Australia as one of a range of energy solutions to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and whether they would personally be in favour or against a nuclear power station being built in your local area.
*****
It's a war of attrition.......................!

I doubt we have even used half of the known reserves. Consider your sources - they are after your money and they don't reference their source.

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2007 at 8:03pm:

I doubt we have even used half of the known reserves. Consider your sources - they are after your money and they don't reference their source.

It doesn't seem to go with what most would have you believe at the very least.

My question is: who owns science around here?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-backs-off-nuke-waste-dump-referendum/2007/08/29/1188067184789.html

Prime Minister John Howard has refused to hold a referendum on a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.

Last week, Mr Howard promised that nuclear power stations would not be imposed on any community in Australia unless residents agree to it in a binding referendum.

Territory parliament on Tuesday passed a motion calling on the commonwealth to offer Territorians the same chance to vote on a nuclear dump.

Quote:

Last week, Mr Howard promised that nuclear power stations would not be imposed on any community in Australia unless residents agree to it in a binding referendum.

Was that a core promise - or a non-core promise?  

Why has he refused to hold a referendum on a nuclear waste dump here in Australia stop?

If Howard gets in again we won't have a choice of whether we want nuclear reactors in Australia - let alone a dump.

If the waste from nuclear power was spread evenly over all the land on earth, how bad would the radiation be? Would it be significantly above background levels?

---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Nuke-power-is-no-certainty-Turnbull/2007/10/22/1192940972499.html

A nuclear-powered future is not a certainty in Australia, federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull says.

Mr Turnbull told reporters in Sydney on Monday that more research into clean energy technologies may show nuclear energy is not the cheapest option and therefore may never be adopted.

But even if it is, it's at least 10 to 15 years away, he said.

"If clean coal turns out to be a cheaper alternative then we may never have nuclear power in Australia," Mr Turnbull said.

Opposition environment spokesman Peter Garrett labelled Mr Turnbull's comments as an election act.

"Mr Turnbull today tried to suggest that nuclear reactors may never be built in Australia under a Liberal government," Mr Garrett said.

"Just hours after the prime minister supported nuclear power in the national televised debate ... Mr Turnbull is suddenly saying nuclear reactors may never be built in Australia.

"Only one thing has changed in the nuclear debate - that is an election is around the corner."

---

Nuclear the cleanest?

Interesting comments from BHP:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Tradeoffs-needed-for-green-move-Argus/2007/10/26/1192941283843.html

After the meeting, Mr Argus said he believed nuclear power would be introduced in Australia one day, but only after people became more "educated" about it.

"The debate in the northern hemisphere is far more advanced than what it is in the Australian community," he said.

"I think once people see nuclear is the cleanest form of energy then they will move on to the (nuclear) waste debate, and that's where I think we should be concentrating.

...

Germany has committed itself to phasing out all nuclear power plants within two decades. But Europe's largest economy still heavily relies on coal and imported oil and natural gas. The Combined Power Plant shows that the arguments against the 'intermittent' renewables (wind and solar) can be countered by coupling them to biomass systems.

...

source: http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Biofuels.aspx?infoId=16541

It good that Germany is commited and all hope for success to them.

However, I suggest that biofuel will be viable for the rural townships only. In major cities they will remain nuclear. Germany is a population dense country with a townships every 5-10 km. Power distribution is viable there as the domestic structure allows for it. However many solar panels would be require to store enough energy to power say a city like Berlin or Frankfurt?

Having said all that, the EU are commited and actively persueing and innovating renewable energy technologies. The future is bright with them at the helm. Unfortunately, in Australia we do not see such needs for improvements with our reliance on fossil fuels and archaic energy generation.

Biofuels are used mainly for transport, not electricity (the nuclear reference). There is no reason for it to be restricted to rural areas as economies of scale will most likely lead to production in fairly large plants and then blending with conventional fuel.

Of course, my mistake and I stand corrected. Please change bio-fuel to renewable energy (ie: solar, wind etc) on my post as that is what I really meant.

LOL.

 :-X :-/ :o :-?

good article acid, well done.

Good plan by gernamy, given the 20 year lead time. Makes it practical.

Electricity is really easy to transport from the rural areas into the cities.

http://news.smh.com.au/national/fed-govt-speeds-up-dump-site-decision-20080609-2nph.html

The federal government is fast-tracking a decision that could see a nuclear waste dump established in the Northern Territory.

Consultants are expected to report back to the government this month on a series of sites investigated in the Top End, Fairfax newspapers reported on Monday.

Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson told Fairfax he was keen to act soon after years of government indecision on the dump.

"I know I've got one of the tough decisions of this parliament. It's got to be done. You can't hide from your responsibilities and you can't play politics," Mr Ferguson said.

Quote:

Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson told Fairfax he was keen to act soon after years of government indecision on the dump. "I know I've got one of the tough decisions of this parliament. It's got to be done. You can't hide from your responsibilities and you can't play politics," Mr Ferguson said

Martin Ferguson has been intoxicated with the NP lobby for years.  

He's lying - there hasn't been years of government indecision - this dump was planned all along and the only holdup was the location of the site.  They had 3 choices.

Before he won the election Rudd said we wouldn't have a NP dump in Australia.  There is going to be a lot of anger over this.  

mantra - rudd is backflipping on this also ?
Once again keeping his profile far from it

If they do go ahead with making us a nuclear tip, then I for one, will never vote Labor again.

Ferguson has always been a self serving union man, who seems enchanted by his courtship at the hands of the nuclear lobby.

The cynic in me has to wonder what dirty linen may come out in the wash?

Ferguson has always promoted nuclear power and will end up causing a lot of damage to the Rudd government pushing his uranium agenda.  

The geothermal projects  or Uranium mines could provide a good location for a nuclear waste dump. Put the waste underground along with the natural stuff that has a higher activity anyway. What's the problem with that?  

muso wrote on Jun 10^th, 2008 at 10:58am:

The geothermal projects  or Uranium mines could provide a good location for a nuclear waste dump. Put the waste underground along with the natural stuff that has a higher activity anyway. What's the problem with that?

My problem with that idea is it supports an irresponsible industry desperate for a get-out-of-jail-free card and if democracy means a thing I will not vote for it!

 :D :D :D

Muso, I don't think geothermal involves the extraction of anything other than heat.

At least one of the batholiths where  geothermal projects are planned contains radioactive material. (That's what produces the heat)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 10^th, 2008 at 12:03pm:

muso wrote on Jun 10th, 2008 at 10:58am: The geothermal projects  or Uranium mines could provide a good location for a nuclear waste dump. Put the waste underground along with the natural stuff that has a higher activity anyway. What's the problem with that?   My problem with that idea is it supports an irresponsible industry desperate for a get-out-of-jail-free card and if democracy means a thing I will not vote for it!  :D :D :D

In what way is it irresponsible? - and what makes you think you'll get to vote on it?  It just needs to go through the Environmental Impact Assessment.

People run around like headless chooks when you talk about radioactive material - probably because it's something they don't understand.   Human beings are naturally radioactive. Cadavers are exempt from the legislation governing radioactive waste, but radioactive waste with the same activity as you and me (very low I presume) is subject to extremely careful control.

Which kind of gamma radiation do you think is most harmful - natural or artificial?   :P

At least one of the batholiths where  geothermal projects are planned contains radioactive material. (That's what produces the heat)

But that doesn't mean it is a good place to store radioactive material which we produce. Digging a 4km pipe down to pump water is not that same as digging a 4km deep mineshaft and excavating. By digging the hole, you would be bringing more radioactive material to the surface.

Actually fission has been know to occur naturally underground in uranium deposits:

http://www.ans.org/pi/np/oklo/

Oklo's Natural Fission Reactors

More than 1.5 billion years ago (that's more than 1,500 million years) a nuclear fission reaction took place in an underground uranium deposit in Oklo, Gabon, Africa.  The fission reaction continued - off and on - for hundreds of thousands of years.  Eventually, the reactor shut down.

While it was active, the natural reactor generated fission products (wastes) very similar to those produced when fission occurs in modern nuclear reactors at power plants.

When evidence of the Oklo reactor was discovered in 1972, the fission products had been lying in Mother Nature's repository for about a billion years (that's 1,000 million years).  In fact, it was studies of the fission products found in the uranium mine which showed that a natural reactor had operated there.

The Oklo reactor provided an interesting natural analog for waste management.  Studying what happened to the fission products in the reactor has provided valuable insight into the requirements for a long-term waste repository.

I have no particular objection to nuclear technologies being used in conjunction with other renewables.

Amidst the nuclear power debate mid 2007 I wrote (and more recently reposted in July):


Quote:

The Canadian Deuterium Uranium reactor type is probably the best choice if Australia is to pursue a nuclear future. This type of reactor and generating facility has a projected service life of over 60 years which means including establishment cost, commissioning cost, maintenance cost and decommissioning cost its projected wholesale power cost in current prices is $0.0356 au per kilowatt hour. The current NEMMCO wholesale purchase price is $0.115 au per kilowatt hour, as this is approximate to three times the cost commercial power generators will be attracted to this investment opportunity. It should be noted that the cost of power generation by Nuclear means in Canada is 0.0260 $per kWh but the industry is has greater development and infrastructure. The CANDU 9 has a double valance enclosure around the reactor containment vessel and uniquely the heavy water moderator is also the medium for critical fission, as the moderator, its temperature, density and level in the reactor are controlling the process. A simple thermometric and pressure activated valve system make this reactor impossible to meltdown or suffer other catastrophic failure, excluding deliberate sabotage or attack. The double valance enclosure ensures that with the exception of specific military deep penetration ordinance it has a one point failure rating, thus minimizing the risk of nominal terrorist action. The fuel used in this reactor is un-enriched uranium but it is also capable of using transuranics as a partial source, thus allowing the reactor to continually recycle old fuel until full fission is completed, it also allows the use of plutonium and other wastes generated from external sources to be incorporated into the fuel. The operating temperature of the CANDU 9 is 290 degrees Celsius, substantially below critical heat levels found in many other reactors. This has the desirable effect of extending metallurgical stability, eliminating the risk of burn through or containment failure and giving a high degree of flexibility to operational parameters. The ability to recycle wastes and other transuranics such as plutonium is also a desirable feature, in many nations the partial fission caused by the use of Fast Breeder and similar reactors has produced a storage problem, it has also created the possibility of Nuclear Arms Proliferation, this reactor is a capable partial solution, weapons grade plutonium and other materials can be used in the fuel, this allows Australia for the first time to account for it uranium exports as the use of this material in these reactors would substantially minimize the chance of Australian Uranium becoming part of the weapons cycle. This coupled with the technology of Synroc, to encapsulate only fully fissioned fuel wastes, wastes that will have a lesser radioactive emission than the original uranium ore in less than 1000 years. It is a primary fundamental that nuclear energy in Australia will be a closed fuel cycle, it will be safe and the need is temporary, but critical to our needs and transition to a non carbon energy cycle. To facilitate this storage in safety for future generations is paramount, it must be stored in a manner that is both economic and safe. The first option is logically to store the wastes in an area that is geologically stable, is not environmentally sensitive and has a workforce skilled and aware of nuclear safety. The logical conclusion then is to store the nuclear wastes in a repository that has these conditions, the exhausted shafts and reaches of existing Uranium mines are such places. The use of these cavities is not only logical but ensures the fuel cycle is fully closed, as the storage of the wastes return them to their place of origin, into a sealed system, that is completely and irrevocably sealed once processing stops. It would also provide a secondary income stream for the mining operations, to facilitate greater safety and productivity. http://senexx.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/nuclear-power/

Alternatively a Pebble-Bed Reactor would do.  Even Homer Simpson could run one of those safely.  And we have moved towards portable nuclear power now (click the image) and plenty of well nuanced information (before clicking) there as well.

Is it true that coal power stations emit radioactive particles (such as Uranium), and toxic chemicals (such as methyl mercury)?
What kinds of emissions are there from nuclear reactors?
What levels of radiation have been released from modern reactors, and how does that compare to other sources of radiation to which we are exposed?
Can we reprocess nuclear waste and use it again, to reduce the quanty of waste?
Can a modern reactor melt down like in the movies?
How does the volume of waste (and toxicities) from nuclear power compare to the volume of waste (and toxicities) from other power sources?

Quote:

Is it true that coal power stations emit radioactive particles (such as Uranium), and toxic chemicals (such as methyl mercury)?

I have heard similar claims. You need to burn huge quantities of the stuff to get the same energy as you would from nuclear, and there is little effort to prevent the small percentage of radioactive components going up the chimney. I suspect it may be comparable or even more than what has been released by nuclear energy, but I haven't chased up the numbers.

A price on carbon would make nuclear power much more attractive.

The idea that there may be spent uranium rods stored in hermetically sealed containers languishing in some remote, inaccessible location in this country someday is just too terrifying for me to think about.

aikmann4 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 1:23pm:

The idea that there may be spent uranium rods stored in hermetically sealed containers languishing in some remote, inaccessible location in this country someday is just too terrifying for me to think about.

I agree. It would be just too terrifying for you to think about.

In addition, it would be highly illegal and a very wasteful practice.

Fortunately that's not how nuclear waste is stored or proposed to be stored in Australia. The fuel rods are broken down and we end up with the unusable chemicals - (they call them daughter isotopes.) - generally not Uranium. Waste is fused with borosilicate glass to provide an immobilised form of waste that can be handled safely for at least a few hours wearing no more than a thick pair of gloves.

The immobilised waste has lower activity than some naturally occurring ores.

That's it in a nutshell. People who work in the field would tell me that I've forgotten to add all kinds of details that don't add anything to the argument either way. 

I remember when I was a radiation safety officer about 10 years ago - Lucas Heights sent me a replacement source, and it was sent on the final leg by a non-licensed courier. I was livid. Apart from the fact that staying back to complete the paperwork deprived me of my evening. I rang the after hours number of Radiation Health and got somebody who quietly recorded the details.

The next morning, I received a verbal blast from Radiation Health. I replied that I was the one who had reported it, and told them to read the report in future before roaring in my ear.  

All this was over a source that you could probably carry in your pocket for a few hours without effect.

The biggest risk with radioactive materials is that they could end up in scrap metal and then contaminate an entire steel mill.

That happened in the USA once. They had to shut down the steel mill and build a new one next to it. It's more of a financial risk than a health risk.

Quote:

I agree. It would be just too terrifying for you to think about.

I'm not entirely sure how exactly radioactive fuel is contained after usage, but that was a sarcastic post. I'm a big advocate of nuclear energy and think that most of the fear mongering claims made regarding it, particularly pertaining to the spent fuel, are silly. I may not have gotten the specific details over its storage correct, but the general message I was trying to get across was that I think that most of allegations about the dangers of nuclear power that get passed around (by an especially vociferous subset of the population) seem like a whole lot of hot air over something that in reality is probably very easily managable. One of the first posts I made on this forum was of a similar nature  :D

It was just that one line that was sarcastic - and I couldn't resist it  ;) It's the smart arse in me.

I always think it's funny how they decided to call the decay products of a radioactive element "daughter elements"  The daughter elements are what cause most of the problems for nuclear waste.

Maybe somebody had a teenage daughter at the time.

Adam wrote on Sep 21^st, 2010 at 9:57am:

Is it true that coal power stations emit radioactive particles (such as Uranium), and toxic chemicals (such as methyl mercury)?

It's true. The actual mass of the various contaminants depends on the source of the coal. If I have time, I'll provide a breakdown at some stage. The radioactive particles are not Uranium. I have a feeling that it's mainly radon gas. You get a certain amount of that in natural gas too.  In my dim and distant past, I recall testing sludge from LPG production for radioactive materials too.


Quote:

What kinds of emissions are there from nuclear reactors? What levels of radiation have been released from modern reactors, and how does that compare to other sources of radiation to which we are exposed?

Excellent question. I'll try to find an answer for you. Your exposure depends on a lot of factors. The main factor is where you live. If you live on top of a mountain then that dramatically increases your exposure eg La Paz, Mexico City and Salt Lake City.  If you live in a building made from Granite, that significantly increases it again.

The biggest effect is from long haul air flights. I used to do a lot of those in the 1990's and carried my exposure badge with me.  On one occasion, I had 'please explain' phone calls from radiation health, who thought I had been playing with our radiation sources.  


Quote:

Can we reprocess nuclear waste and use it again, to reduce the quanty of waste?

That's exactly what happens.


Quote:

Can a modern reactor melt down like in the movies?

No.

I will try to answer your questions if I get time. These are the right questions to ask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_5HFvu8O4U

Adam wrote on Sep 21^st, 2010 at 9:57am:

What levels of radiation have been released from modern reactors, and how does that compare to other sources of radiation to which we are exposed?

To save me the trouble of finding the data, here is a Scientific American article. It seems that Coal fired power stations produce 100 times the levels of radiation compared to modern nuclear power stations.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

I'd suggest that exposure from long haul flights or visits to the mountains is even more hazardous than this.

At some stage I provided a list of relative risks.

The average non-smoking Australian is exposed to 2 mSv each year.

Measurements and modelling of Australian aircrew exposures have indicated an additional dose from commercial airflight of around 1.8 mSv per year for those involved in domestic routes, and around 4 mSv per year for those involved in international flight routes.

If you're a smoker, add another 13mSv per year.

Living within 1.6 km of a coal fired Power Station (on average) increases your exposure by 0.02mSv.

Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year.

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 11:57am:

Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year.

Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!?

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:00pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 11:57am: Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year. Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!?

Which doesn't happen too frequently.

qikvtec wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:11pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 12:00pm: muso wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 11:57am: Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year. Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!? Which doesn't happen too frequently.

True, but the risk is increasing all the time - as the operators of many nuke plants constructed decades ago continue to tempt fate, by operating them well beyond their originally-engineered lifespan...

Chernobyl was conveniently blamed on the dastardly 'Commies' but the next BIG KABOOM will decimate the nuke industry - along with the regional neighbourhood - no matter where it occurs...

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:28pm:

qikvtec wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 12:11pm: Equitist wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 12:00pm: muso wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 11:57am: Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year. Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!? Which doesn't happen too frequently. True, but the risk is increasing all the time - as the operators of many nuke plants constructed decades ago continue to tempt fate, by operating them well beyond their originally-engineered lifespan... Chernobyl was conveniently blamed on the dastardly 'Commies' but the next BIG KABOOM will decimate the nuke industry - along with the regional neighbourhood - no matter where it occurs...

What's the alternative?  

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:00pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 11:57am: Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year. Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!?

You mean if somebody bombed the installation?


Quote:

True, but the risk is increasing all the time - as the operators of many nuke plants constructed decades ago continue to tempt fate, by operating them well beyond their originally-engineered lifespan...

All industrial plants can be extended beyond their projected lifetime - not just nuclear plants, and it doesn't imply any additional risk as long as statutory maintenance and inspections are carried out. The lifetime of an industrial plant is determined by economic factors rather than anything else.

Modern nuclear plants were designed to fail-safe, unlike Chernobyl. It wasn't so much the Commies that  were to blame as the design of the reactor. Unfortunately this design of reactor is still in operation at Smolensk and Leningrad (3 Units from memory), but a number of safety features have been added to prevent a recurrence of the Chernobyl disaster. Nevertheless, I don't trust the design.

qikvtec wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 1:26pm:

What's the alternative?

There are plenty of alternatives, but none of them are as cost effective.  Uranium based nuclear fission reactors will fill a medium term gap. Eventually (in around 100 years) we'll run out of ore. During that period we can develop other technologies such as solar and geothermal energy.  

Looking at it from an Australian point of view, it doesn't matter if we decide to export the Uranium rather than use it for power generation. It's a global issue. As long as we mine it, we're contributing to the solution.

The viable medium term solutions for Australia are Solar thermal and geothermal, and possibly off-shore based wind generation in the Bass Strait.  Other technologies such as combined cycle gas generation will also fill a medium term gap, although it's not carbon neutral.

There is a very good reason why nuclear risks are excluded from most insurance policies - and that is because the consequences of a single nuclear accident are potentially so grave and extensive as to bankrupt the insurers along with a whole region, country and industry...

Even if insurers would underwrite nuclear risk, the premiums would be prohibitive!

Think about it...the costs of building a nuke plant anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term!

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:00pm:

Think about it...the costs of building a nuke plant anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term!

The costs of any engineering in Australia is prohibitive. That's why most technology is imported, and a lot of plant is manufactured in China and assembled in Australia.

Think about it...the costs of building more coal fired power stations anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term!

Nuclear risks ? - think bombs, not power plants.

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:05pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 2:00pm: Think about it...the costs of building a nuke plant anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term! Think about it...the costs of building more coal fired power stations anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term!

LOL...but you know I am correct - and that a many more new coal-fired power stations are not really on the agenda...

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:08pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 2:05pm: Equitist wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 2:00pm: Think about it...the costs of building a nuke plant anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term! Think about it...the costs of building more coal fired power stations anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term! LOL...but you know I am correct - and that a many more new coal-fired power stations are not really on the agenda...

So, what are you proposing to replace and upgrade our coal fired power stations with after you`ve killed off our coal industry, one of our major incomes?

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 1:34pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 12:00pm: muso wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 11:57am: Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year. Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!? You mean if somebody bombed the installation? Quote: True, but the risk is increasing all the time - as the operators of many nuke plants constructed decades ago continue to tempt fate, by operating them well beyond their originally-engineered lifespan... All industrial plants can be extended beyond their projected lifetime - not just nuclear plants, and it doesn't imply any additional risk as long as statutory maintenance and inspections are carried out. The lifetime of an industrial plant is determined by economic factors rather than anything else. Modern nuclear plants were designed to fail-safe, unlike Chernobyl. It wasn't so much the Commies that  were to blame as the design of the reactor. Unfortunately this design of reactor is still in operation at Smolensk and Leningrad (3 Units from memory), but a number of safety features have been added to prevent a recurrence of the Chernobyl disaster. Nevertheless, I don't trust the design.

I don't trust the concept - especially when human nature is involved - nuclear forces are simply are too large and unpredictable to risk unleashing! Period.

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:08pm:

LOL...but you know I am correct - and that a many more new coal-fired power stations are not really on the agenda...

If you're talking costs, most of the solutions will come at a high price.

We can't do it in one hit with Solar or all the renewable technology put together. - not in the time we have. It would be better, sure, but we need to have either nuclear or combined cycle - probably both to fill a stop gap.  

aussiefree2ride wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:12pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 2:08pm: muso wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 2:05pm: Equitist wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 2:00pm: Think about it...the costs of building a nuke plant anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term! Think about it...the costs of building more coal fired power stations anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term! LOL...but you know I am correct - and that a many more new coal-fired power stations are not really on the agenda... So, what are you proposing to replace and upgrade our coal fired power stations with after you`ve killed off our coal industry, one of our major incomes?

I suggest that you check out the plans within the industry itself - some coal plants are already being retrofitted to gas (another fossil fuel that occurs in Oz)...

Meantime, there is much impetus for investment in renewables...

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:12pm:

I don't trust the concept - especially when human nature is involved - nuclear forces are simply are too large and unpredictable to risk unleashing! Period.

History has shown that many more people have died from other means of power generation than nuclear power. Ironically it's one of the safest forms around.

If you're talking about nuclear detonations, they can't happen from a nuclear power plant. A nuclear bomb is a very sophisticated design to get right, and the Uranium isotope must be extremely pure.

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:15pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 2:08pm: LOL...but you know I am correct - and that a many more new coal-fired power stations are not really on the agenda... If you're talking costs, most of the solutions will come at a high price. We can't do it in one hit with Solar or all the renewable technology put together. - not in the time we have. It would be better, sure, but we need to have either nuclear or combined cycle - probably both to fill a stop gap.

I disagree - unlike in the fossil fuel sector, recent investments have resulted in rapid improvements in the renewable technology sector...

Nuke plants require disproportionate safety engineering and construction costs - not to mention long-term contamination risks - and safer and more viable alternatives to nukes will probably come online long before humanity could be convinced to accept wholesale nukes as a necessary stop-gap solution...

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:19pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 2:12pm: I don't trust the concept - especially when human nature is involved - nuclear forces are simply are too large and unpredictable to risk unleashing! Period. History has shown that many more people have died from other means of power generation than nuclear power. Ironically it's one of the safest forms around. If you're talking about nuclear detonations, they can't happen from a nuclear power plant. A nuclear bomb is a very sophisticated design to get right, and the Uranium isotope must be extremely pure.

3 Mile Island and Chernobyl provide sufficient evidence for me, that nuclear plants are inherently and risky - no thanks!

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:23pm:

Nuke plants require disproportionate safety engineering and construction costs - not to mention long-term contamination risks - and safer and more viable alternatives to nukes will probably come online long before humanity could be convinced to accept wholesale nukes as a necessary stop-gap solution...

Do you know what the EROI for a US built Generation 3 Nuclear plant is?  The construction costs and safety engineering costs are not disproportionate.

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 1:34pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 12:00pm: muso wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 11:57am: Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year. Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!? You mean if somebody bombed the installation? Quote: True, but the risk is increasing all the time - as the operators of many nuke plants constructed decades ago continue to tempt fate, by operating them well beyond their originally-engineered lifespan... All industrial plants can be extended beyond their projected lifetime - not just nuclear plants, and it doesn't imply any additional risk as long as statutory maintenance and inspections are carried out. The lifetime of an industrial plant is determined by economic factors rather than anything else. Modern nuclear plants were designed to fail-safe, unlike Chernobyl. It wasn't so much the Commies that  were to blame as the design of the reactor. Unfortunately this design of reactor is still in operation at Smolensk and Leningrad (3 Units from memory), but a number of safety features have been added to prevent a recurrence of the Chernobyl disaster. Nevertheless, I don't trust the design.

I don't think there's much risk now....All the RBMK-1000 reactors (like Smolensk ) have all been heavily modified, post-Chernobyl....to remove (or limit) the same type of meltdown as Chernobyl....

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:25pm:

3 Mile Island and Chernobyl provide sufficient evidence for me, that nuclear plants are inherently and risky - no thanks!

Chermobyl was pretty bad, but as far as long-term risks are concerned, it's the most successful wildlife park in Europe today containing some species that would have otherwise gone exinct.

Tell me about Three Mile Island. I know about it, but you bring it up as if it had grave repercussions. How many fatalities? How many people injured, and how bad is the contamination today?


Which is worse? Three Mile Island or the Waterfall rail crash of 2003?  Which one do people remember though?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:27pm:

I don't think there's much risk now....All the RBMK-1000 reactors (like Smolensk ) have all been heavily modified, post-Chernobyl....to remove (or limit) the same type of meltdown as Chernobyl....

Correct.

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:25pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 2:19pm: Equitist wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 2:12pm: I don't trust the concept - especially when human nature is involved - nuclear forces are simply are too large and unpredictable to risk unleashing! Period. History has shown that many more people have died from other means of power generation than nuclear power. Ironically it's one of the safest forms around. If you're talking about nuclear detonations, they can't happen from a nuclear power plant. A nuclear bomb is a very sophisticated design to get right, and the Uranium isotope must be extremely pure. 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl provide sufficient evidence for me, that nuclear plants are inherently and risky - no thanks!

3 Mile Island was pretty much a non-event to the people living in the area.....There was very little exposure to anyone....mostly it was a PR problem and expensive to repair, and that's about it.....

"In the aftermath of the accident, investigations focused on the amount of radiation released by the accident. According to the American Nuclear Society, using the official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year.""

Yeah. 8 millrem is 0.08mSv or practically nothing in the scheme of things. It's swamped by other radiation.

It equates to the same risk as drinking a can of diet coke.

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:39pm:

Yeah. 8 millrem is 0.08mSv or practically nothing in the scheme of things. It's swamped by other radiation. It equates to the same risk as drinking a can of diet coke.

Well I did read that 200millrem is equal to eating 1 banana a day for a year......
I think you'd get more than 8 millrem by walking under a power line...

Quote:

and that a many more new coal-fired power stations are not really on the agenda

It depends what you call "many more".
As it stands now there are up to 15 new coal fired power stations planned for Australia.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:42pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 2:39pm: Yeah. 8 millrem is 0.08mSv or practically nothing in the scheme of things. It's swamped by other radiation. It equates to the same risk as drinking a can of diet coke. Well I did read that 200millrem is equal to eating 1 banana a day for a year...... I think you'd get more than 8 millrem by walking under a power line...

You don't get ionising radiation from  a powerline, but yeah 0.08mSV is like 1/20 of the exposure from a single dental x-ray.

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 3:00pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 2:42pm: muso wrote on Oct 1st, 2010 at 2:39pm: Yeah. 8 millrem is 0.08mSv or practically nothing in the scheme of things. It's swamped by other radiation. It equates to the same risk as drinking a can of diet coke. There is a theory that a low level of ionising radiation is good for you (hormesis). The background in Australia is about 1.5 mSv a year. There is a place in India where the natural background is 50 mSv a year.   Well I did read that 200millrem is equal to eating 1 banana a day for a year...... I think you'd get more than 8 millrem by walking under a power line... You don't get ionising radiation from  a powerline, but yeah 0.08mSV is like 1/20 of the exposure from a single dental x-ray.

pjb05 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2010 at 6:35am:

There is a theory that a low level of ionising radiation is good for you (hormesis). The background in Australia is about 1.5 mSv a year. There is a place in India where the natural background is 50 mSv a year.

Yes, some research shows that up to 10mSv per year could have beneficial effects.

The average background radiation in Pripyat (next to Chernobyl) is currently lower than the average natural background radiation in Finland, but there are some hot spots. What's next? Therapeutic holidays to Pripyat?  ;D

I think Thorium pebble reactors are the best bet.
We know they work & they can't melt down.
Neutrons have to be fired into them for them to work -
stop the neutrons & the reactor stops.

Thorium is abundant in Australia.
We should be selling the Thorium pebbles & then invent
the technology to provide the power stations to use it.
We could be world leaders in safe nuclear energy.

What a winner for business, technology & safe energy we could be.
We only need one man/woman with a vision to lead us.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2010 at 11:15pm:

I think Thorium pebble reactors are the best bet. We know they work & they can't melt down. Neutrons have to be fired into them for them to work - stop the neutrons & the reactor stops. Thorium is abundant in Australia. We should be selling the Thorium pebbles & then invent the technology to provide the power stations to use it. We could be world leaders in safe nuclear energy. What a winner for business, technology & safe energy we could be. We only need one man/woman with a vision to lead us.

The Chinese seem to be having more success with the technology than the Germans, but yeah once it has a track record, it would make sense to go down that track. Less Waste - virtually unbreakable.

muso wrote on Oct 7^th, 2010 at 8:42am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6th, 2010 at 11:15pm: I think Thorium pebble reactors are the best bet. We know they work & they can't melt down. Neutrons have to be fired into them for them to work - stop the neutrons & the reactor stops. Thorium is abundant in Australia. We should be selling the Thorium pebbles & then invent the technology to provide the power stations to use it. We could be world leaders in safe nuclear energy. What a winner for business, technology & safe energy we could be. We only need one man/woman with a vision to lead us. The Chinese seem to be having more success with the technology than the Germans, but yeah once it has a track record, it would make sense to go down that track. Less Waste - virtually unbreakable.

How much waste is "less waste", and how toxic is it, and how long does it remain so?

I still hold massive concerns over Nuclear waste, and until we have a waste product that will not remain deadly for periods exponentially longer than any civilisation has ever lasted, then I will continue to hold such concerns.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 7^th, 2010 at 9:27am:

How much waste is "less waste", and how toxic is it, and how long does it remain so? I still hold massive concerns over Nuclear waste, and until we have a waste product that will not remain deadly for periods exponentially longer than any civilisation has ever lasted, then I will continue to hold such concerns.

Crude Oil is an example of a naturally occurring substance that is potentially much more harmful than borosilicate encapsulated nuclear waste.  The aromatic content is carcinogenic, teratogenic and we concentrate the aromatic fraction of crude oil and sell it to people with absolutely no technical expertise, in order to refuel their cars.

Crude Oil is mobile and has lasted for many millions of years.  

If we were selling encapsulated radioactive waste to the general public, it would represent a much lower risk than selling petrol.

Then there are cigarettes..............

To answer your question on Thorium, it  has several advantages:

1.The process produces 0.1% of the high-level radioactive waste per unit energy compared to Uranium fission.

2. The half life of the waste is of the order of tens of years compared to thousands of years for the Uranium cycle.

3. If we transition to a cyclotron based fission system using Thorium, it has the potential to use and decontaminate existing Uranium fission waste.


In terms of total radioactive waste, the burning of coal produces 100 times the amount of radiation compared to  Uranium based nuclear fission.

Before the Second World War, a certain type of bright yellow Czech glassware was very popular. You can still pick it up in some antique shops. It contains more Uranium and more radionuclides than borosilicate encapsulated radioactive waste.

In terms of toxicity, it's much less toxic than many household chemicals that we can buy from the supermarket.

People have a superstitious fear of nuclear power generation. That's all it is.

Mozz.

Quote:

I still hold massive concerns over Nuclear waste, and until we have a waste product that will not remain deadly for periods exponentially longer than any civilisation has ever lasted, then I will continue to hold such concerns.

Trust me - I used to work for the government.
Thorium is very safe.
You could have a reactor at the end of your street & not have to worry at all.

muso wrote on Oct 7^th, 2010 at 11:26am:

In terms of total radioactive waste, the burning of coal produces 100 times the amount of radiation compared to  Uranium based nuclear fission. Before the Second World War, a certain type of bright yellow Czech glassware was very popular. You can still pick it up in some antique shops. It contains more Uranium and more radionuclides than borosilicate encapsulated radioactive waste. In terms of toxicity, it's much less toxic than many household chemicals that we can buy from the supermarket. People have a superstitious fear of nuclear power generation. That's all it is.

I think you mean burning coal releases 100x more radiation than nuclear fission, Muso. Fission produces a lot of radiation, but the containment features of a nuclear power station keep it isolated from the environment.

Regarding glass, at Sydney airport there is some nicer apple green glass which owes it colour to the uranium salts it contains!  

pjb05 wrote on Oct 7^th, 2010 at 5:47pm:

I think you mean burning coal releases 100x more radiation than nuclear fission, Muso. Fission produces a lot of radiation, but the containment features of a nuclear power station keep it isolated from the environment. Regarding glass, at Sydney airport there is some nicer apple green glass which owes it colour to the uranium salts it contains!

That's what I thought I said - I was talking in terms of waste.

The green glass probably contains mostly Uranium 238. It's the most abundant form (about 98%) of Uranium found naturally.

It has a half life the age of the Solar System (4.5 billion years) but it's an alpha emitter which means that you can hold a lump of U-238 wearing a pair of rubber gloves.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/HEUraniumC.jpg/250px-HEUraniumC.jpg

Alpha emitters are the worst when it comes to ingested or inhaled dust because Alpha particles cause about 100 times more damage to the body cells, compared to gamma rays, which penetrate the entire body.  

Muso.

Quote:

It has a half life the age of the Solar System (4.5 billion years) but it's an alpha emitter which means that you can hold a lump of U-238 wearing a pair of rubber gloves.

I believe you can hold radioactive waste if it's encapsulated in glass.
That's a way of making waste safe.
There is also the synrock alternative.

I'd like to get some of that green glass.
I bet it glows in the dark?

It fluoresces green under UV light. The old watch dials that used to glow green contained some Radium.

Yes, you can encapsulate the waste in borosilicate glass.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2010 at 11:20am:

Muso. Quote: It has a half life the age of the Solar System (4.5 billion years) but it's an alpha emitter which means that you can hold a lump of U-238 wearing a pair of rubber gloves. I believe you can hold radioactive waste if it's encapsulated in glass. That's a way of making waste safe. There is also the synrock alternative. I'd like to get some of that green glass. I bet it glows in the dark?

It's not allowed due to non-proliferation rules. The uranium glass at Sydney airport (part of a glass mural in the arrival area) was possible due to ANSTO getting a special exemption.

Pjb05,

Quote:

It's not allowed due to non-proliferation rules. The uranium glass at Sydney airport (part of a glass mural in the arrival area) was possible due to ANSTO getting a special exemption.

When I was a young Uni student I took a watch
( an old present from my grandfather ) & presented it to the
lecturer when he was measuring radioactivity with
a geiger counter of some samples.
My watch was more radioactive than his samples.
The marks for hours & the hands would glow in the dark
as they were painted with flourescent paint mixed with
some sort of radioactive ore. ( Radium? )

You can't get watches like that now - but  - maybe they are dangerous?

It's all a question of dose. I'd suggest that the dose would be minimal.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2010 at 9:01pm:

Pjb05, Quote: It's not allowed due to non-proliferation rules. The uranium glass at Sydney airport (part of a glass mural in the arrival area) was possible due to ANSTO getting a special exemption. When I was a young Uni student I took a watch ( an old present from my grandfather ) & presented it to the lecturer when he was measuring radioactivity with a geiger counter of some samples. My watch was more radioactive than his samples. The marks for hours & the hands would glow in the dark as they were painted with flourescent paint mixed with some sort of radioactive ore. ( Radium? ) You can't get watches like that now - but  - maybe they are dangerous?

Radium is highly radioactive. Marie Curie's desk and papers are still radioactive and can only be handled with special precautions. She used to keep samples in her desk and open the drawers and admire the pretty glow they gave off. As the discoverer of radium she was given a pendant containing some radium. She died from lukemia brought on by overeposure to radiation.
 
Yes radium was used on watch dials but id not regarded as a health hazard for the wearer:

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/factsheets/is_radium.cfm

Radium Paint in Wrist Watches

Paint containing small quantities of radium-226 has been used since the early 1920’s on the hands and numerals of wrist watches. Following the discovery of radium by Pierre and Marie Curie in the early 20th century, it was quickly realised that the luminescent properties of radium made it useful on watch and clock faces, as it made them easy to read in the dark. Paint containing small quantities of radium-226 has been used since the early 1920’s on the hands and numerals of wrist watches.

Although the scientific literature contains many stories about the high rate of cancer among the women employed as dial painters, the radiation risk associated with wearing a standard wrist watch is extremely small.

Radium emits alpha radiation and gamma radiation. The alpha radiation carries most of the energy, but is only hazardous when taken into the body by inhalation or ingestion, or through open wounds. Gamma radiation is more of an external hazard, but there is only a small amount of radium on the face of a typical wrist watch, and the back of the watch (next to the skin) is protected by a metal or plastic case.

The problem with the dial painters occurred because watch faces are very small, and the dial painters had the habit of licking the tips of their brushes to make a fine point, so that the paint would go where it was wanted. As a result of this practice, which was carried out for a number of years, most of the cancers suffered by the dial painters were cancers of the jaw, mouth and throat.

Other non-radioactive substances are now used in modern watches to make them visible in the dark. The wearing of older wrist watches that do contain luminescent radium paint is not regarded as any form of health hazard.