Nuclear power plants

[jx2mad]

Heard today that discussions on these are under way in Australia. Supposed to be environmentally friendly...until they malfunction and then they are the biggest threat to the environment... far worse than fossil fuels. Jim

[shorty943]

We already have one, at Lucas Heights, it's only used to make isotopes for nuclear medicines though.
Cancer therapy stuff.
One of the oldest reactors in the world now, and a very good safety record because of our way of running it.
Biggest problem with them has been the corporate way of ducking maintenance, as shown at Chenobyl and Fukushima, sadly.
Admittedly they also need to be in a safer more stable place, than by the sea in a quake prone country.

[Ferret]

One of the oldest reactors in the world now, and a very good safety record because of our way of running it.

I thought the old HIFAR reactor was closed in 2007. Now replaced by a different reactor.

[Homestar]

Bring it on - I'm a big fan of Nuclear energy - we should have it here in Australia. We have most of the worlds Uranium deposits, a much more stable environment than most countries that use them, and if you build the right reactor - can't remember what they are called, but you can run them dry and they won't bolw up. These types of reactors won't produce weapons grade waste, so they aren't seen in a very positive light by the countries that have Nuclear Weapons programs.

And yes, I'd have on in my back yard. In fact if they ever decide to build one, I'd probably go looking for a job there....

Cheers - Gav

[KarlB]

We already have one, at Lucas Heights, it's only used to make isotopes for nuclear medicines though.
Cancer therapy stuff.
One of the oldest reactors in the world now, and a very good safety record because of our way of running it.
Biggest problem with them has been the corporate way of ducking maintenance, as shown at Chenobyl and Fukushima, sadly.
Admittedly they also need to be in a safer more stable place, than by the sea in a quake prone country.

Australia is certainly not free of significant earthquakes: see Australia's worst earthquakes: top 10 most devastating - Australian Geographic (http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/australias-worst-earthquakes-top-10-most-devastating.htm). And ANSTO's Lucas Heights facility is hardly accident free (for example, see More nuclear spills at Lucas Heights - National - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/more-nuclear-spills-at-lucas-heights/2006/06/15/1149964675934.html) and Safety breaches at Lucas Heights (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/safety-breaches-at-lucas-heights-20100506-uayf.html).

What we need is a fusion reactor, not a fission.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[isuzutoo-eh]

Yeah I like nuclear power as an energy source. I reckon the country should have lots of tiny Thorium stations dotted around as localised power sources-every other suburb in big cities, no worries about putting the power station near the source of energy (coal etc) and having a massive grid to distribute. Don't discriminate where the stations are built, put them near the demand, so Sydney's north shore or Melbourne's Toorak would have their own little plants just like Bankstown, Shalvey, Dandenong or Rowville to quieten the NIMBYs.

Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power)

[KarlB]

I thought the old HIFAR reactor was closed in 2007. Now replaced by a different reactor.

Permanent decommissioning of the HIFAR commenced on 30 January 2007 but it will not be totally decommissioned until 2018.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[wrinklearthur]

What is needed is a device that takes the spent but still highly radioactive waste and processes it into a benign substance.

I agree that living with a properly designed and located nuclear plant would be quite safe these days.
A lot safer to live with than say living in the valley below a concrete 1930's Hydro dam that was built across the fault line the river runs in.
.

[Hay Ewe]

I think that Australia is totally backward and hippocritical in this area.

Australian Government wants to be all eco friendly etc, have a carbon tax, signed up to the kyoto protocol etc but still burns coal for fuel. That's backward.

Australia has big deposits of uranium and is happy to export that but basically wont allow it to be used in this country. That's hippocrictial.

In my opinion there are many areas of Australia that could be suitable places for a nuclear plant, the Uranium is here the knoweldge is mostly here, but sure, they are really few and far between so overseas companies would be involved. There is no getting away from that.

I think the reason why there isn't is becuase no government has the balls to say, "to meet Australia's future electrical needs we shall build a nuclear plant".

In the mean time the population is continuing to grow, whilst TV sets and Air-con units may be come more efficient, the numbers of them will increase and so there will be no significant net gain, more efficeint but more of them = same power consumption.

As for the risk of the nuclear power plants.

The one in Japan did not fail.
The problem was caused by the Tsunami which was much bigger than expected and breached the embankment.
the embankment and containment could have been built higher / bigger but at what cost? what is practicable? example, a train derails at a level crossing and runs in to a bus with 50 people on it. all the people die. Is the answer now to say all traffic must stop 75meters from the gates when the level crossing barriers are down? no, thats not practicable so the risk analysis and common sense to stop how ever many meters from the gates.

Same with the Japanese nuclear plant. The embankment was built how ever many meters high and big based on risk analysis.

Chernobly
The plant did not fail. The engineers running the place over rode saftry control system and pulled out control rods and then lost control. Say what you might about it being Russian etc but really, do you think Russia would WANT to happen what did?

Three Mile Island
this happened when I was 3 years old so my knowledge about this is based on a quick read of a wikipedia article Three Mile Island accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It seems to me that a component failed. components fail.
The systems in place and operator management of those systems caused the failure to not be known for quite some time. This was in 1979. Systems, technology and system architecture have advanced greatly since then. Could we expect the same to happen again - the same what?
component failure? - yes - any component can fail.
Operator error? - Yes - humans can fail.
Severity? - no. with increased control and monitoring systems i would not expect that a situation like Three Mile Island to occur again - but it could.

Is it environmentally friendly I think so. we are constantly told about the carbon emissions etc the use of fossil fuels heating up the planet. Nuclear power seems environmentally friendly to me.

Where to Build?
Teh closer to the Uranuim deposits the better to reduce the transports costs. Construction of power lines and their use over the years is a lot cheaper than transport costs.
They do need lots of cooling water and so near the sea would be the obvious answer. I was in the vicinity of Thorness plant in Scotland years ago (no time to visit unfortunately) they get big storms up there and that plant survives. there are plants on the Atlantic coast of France and they survive. could one survive a cyclone? of course - if it was built appropriately and with that comes cost.

I would not expect one to be built on the Coral Sea because of the proximity to the Barrier Reef. in the Gulf of Carpentaria would be good due to the proximity of deposits in the Cape but the cost of building to survive a Cat 5+ Cyclone would be very high.

I would suggest that anywhere south of Brisbane right round to Perth would be suitable. Not because I live in FNQ - far from it - but access to sea water for cooling and generally less sever weather. It would also be closer to the major population centers

Are there risks. YES. What are the severity of those risks. It depends on the mode of failure. Its like saying that every airplane crash is severe and blaming the manufacture of the aircraft. I cant think of an accident in the last 20 years where the aircraft failed. I can think of accidents where many people were killed and some on the ground died.

Its risk evaluation. If you want to fly but not have the risk of killing some one on the ground dying if the aircraft you are in fails - don't fly.

If you don't want to have the risk of leakage of nuclear gas, reduce power consumption, tell all the people to turn off the air-con units. Tell, MAKE, the council take down all the street lights. Make all the office buildings turn off all the lights during the day time. Outlaw wasteful electronic billboards advertising stuff by the road side. Stop them printing junk mail that only goes from the letter box to the bin. Stop the population growth. If you reduce all this, there wont be a need for addition power.

I would be happy and excited if plans were announced to build a nuclear plant in Australia.

Those are my thoughts on it. I don't want to be antagonistic about it, just replying to your thread opening post.

Hay Ewe

[bob10]

Surprise, surprise, China leads the way. Bob Anyone learning Mandarin?

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium ... (http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=safe%20nuclear%20power%20plants&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&ved=0CF8QFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Ffinance%2Fc omment%2Fambroseevans_pritchard%2F8393984%2FSafe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html&ei=GpfwUYL2PMWSiAe5wIGIAQ&usg=AFQjCNHaJAc65ZUoujjXov1HXOnW7OI1-A)

Telegraph.co.uk - Telegraph online, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk) › Finance (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/) › Comment (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/) › Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/)

Mar 20, 2011 - A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima's uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was ...

[Hay Ewe]

In the time it took me to write my reply - 7 people got in - seems they are all positive too!

Hay Ewe

[bob10]

Bring it on - I'm a big fan of Nuclear energy - we should have it here in Australia. We have most of the worlds Uranium deposits, a much more stable environment than most countries that use them, and if you build the right reactor - can't remember what they are called, but you can run them dry and they won't bolw up.

Cheers - Gav


Thorium based molten salt reactor system, see my previous post re China, Bob

[101RRS]

Heard today that discussions on these are under way in Australia.

Discussions on these have been underway since the 50s when it was agreed to build a nuclear power station at Jervis Bay - the foundations were even built and then it was knocked on the head. The foundations are now a carpark.

Will not happen in Australia for a long time though it would be the best thing for the environment.

garry

[Eevo]

+1 for nukes

[richard4u2]

the government should announce that they are building one then sit back and watch the greens etc go for it hahahha

[Tank]

the government should announce that they are building one then sit back and watch the greens etc go for it hahahha
Not just the greens I can assure you, and all those brave citizens that want a nuclear plant in their backyard should save some room to store the waste, for say a few hundred thousand years, still got your hands up, Regards Frank.

[isuzutoo-eh]

Not just the greens I can assure you, and all those brave citizens that want a nuclear plant in their backyard should save some room to store the waste, for say a few hundred thousand years, still got your hands up, Regards Frank.

Could always bury it in one of those huge coal pits that we won't be quite as reliant on...:p

[Eevo]

Not just the greens I can assure you, and all those brave citizens that want a nuclear plant in their backyard should save some room to store the waste, for say a few hundred thousand years, still got your hands up, Regards Frank.

why in our backyard?

we got a big country.

[TeamFA]

Thorium based molten salt reactor system, see my previous post re China, Bob

Fascinating stuff...
Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power)

Australia has a fair bit of it as well.

[Pickles2]

Bring it on - I'm a big fan of Nuclear energy - we should have it here in Australia. We have most of the worlds Uranium deposits, a much more stable environment than most countries that use them, and if you build the right reactor - can't remember what they are called, but you can run them dry and they won't bolw up. These types of reactors won't produce weapons grade waste, so they aren't seen in a very positive light by the countries that have Nuclear Weapons programs.

And yes, I'd have on in my back yard. In fact if they ever decide to build one, I'd probably go looking for a job there....

Cheers - Gav
+1.
Big fan myself too.
My Brother In Law is a lot smarter than me ....He is a Nuclear Physicist...he has been involved in the field for 40+ years, and has worked in many Nuclear Establishments around the World. He says it is the best & safest method of power genaration....bar none.
And yes, as another member has correctly said, the Japanese "failure" was nothing to do with anything "Nuclear"...it was simply that the machinery used for cooling was mounted (putting it simply) too low, & was overwhelmed by the Tsunami.
Wouldn't worry me at all, where one was built.
Cheers, Pickles.

[KarlB]

Just to get things back on track: DRIVING INTO CHERNOBYL - YouTube.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[Eevo]

Just to get things back on track:

thats like trying to compare a toyota and landrover.

one is badly designed, badly maintained and badly run, and then people are surprised when it blows up


even a car with a 5 star safety rating (fukushima) will be badly dented when it hit by a semi (tsunami)

[Sparksdisco]

Not just the greens I can assure you, and all those brave citizens that want a nuclear plant in their backyard should save some room to store the waste, for say a few hundred thousand years, still got your hands up, Regards Frank.


We put it back where we got it from in the first place.

Put one in Adelaide, close to the uranium and close to the water.

[goingbush]

No doubt there is a place for nuclear power but if every house in Australia had solar panels there may be no need for any extra generating capacity at all

Do we have any deep salt reserves to dump the nuclear waste into ?

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[wrinklearthur]

Just to get things back on track: DRIVING INTO CHERNOBYL - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW-TZSWkGJI).

Thanks for that glowing report. :wasntme:
.

[wrinklearthur]

We put it back where we got it from in the first place.
Put one in Adelaide, close to the uranium and close to the water.


Quote: Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

no way, the bloody thing would probably leak.


I laughed when I read your post complete with your signature line.
.

[Eevo]

but if every house in Australia had solar panels there may be no need for any extra generating capacity at all


nope. i made this calculation once.
if every building in australia has panels on top, it wouldnt meet the residential (not including business or industry) base demand, let alone peak demand

solar is a good idea but its got a long way to go.

[crash]

Don't believe everything you see on the Simpsons, I say Bring on Nuclear power.

[goingbush]

nope. i made this calculation once.
if every building in australia has panels on top, it wouldnt meet the residential (not including business or industry) base demand, let alone peak demand

solar is a good idea but its got a long way to go.

Strange, my brother has a humungous house w a/c and hydronic heating and a huge solar pv array, it more than covers what he uses, recieving credits on his account even during winter, Dad has a smallish house with proportionally smaller array, neither he nor my brother has paid a power bill since installing.

If we end up buying another house will be going solar to, no brainer.

edit, I just found this
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/4/11/solar-energy/if-every-house-had-solar

[Homestar]

No doubt there is a place for nuclear power but if every house in Australia had solar panels there may be no need for any extra generating capacity at all


Won't work. Residential based solar systems are close to saturation now. The grid can't take much more of them, and the power from them goes nowhere when too many are installed in one area.

In laymens terms you need to increase the voltage to push power into the grid, but if you have too many systems doing this in one area then the voltage rises too high and the solar inverter will stop pushing power out.

This is the main reason the rebate was cut back so far - to limit installation numbers that the infrastructure can't handle. The supply authorities are already struggling with this issue in some areas.

[Naviguesser]

Put me down for Nuclear Power.
Simple answer is clean cheap power.
I would have it in back back yard.
Got a mostly dismantled oil refinery a couple of km away, I would have no problem with one getting built there.

[Pinelli]

Strange, my brother has a humungous house w a/c and hydronic heating and a huge solar pv array, it more than covers what he uses, recieving credits on his account even during winter, Dad has a smallish house with proportionally smaller array, neither he nor my brother has paid a power bill since installing.


Don't confuse cost with quantity. I know plenty who don't get a bill, because the power companies pay them twice the retail price per kWh produced, not because they produce more than they use. Timing matters with solar PV as well, as stated elsewhere here.

Solar Thermal though, that's a different story. A very good candidate for baseload alternate energy (but I'm all for nuclear myself as well)

[goingbush]

Put me down for Nuclear Power.
Simple answer is clean cheap power.
I would have it in back back yard.
Got a mostly dismantled oil refinery a couple of km away, I would have no problem with one getting built there.

How is O'Sullivan Beach going ? Thinking of buying there before they turn that into housing & the prices skyrocket !

[bee utey]

How is O'Sullivan Beach going ? Thinking of buying there before they turn that into housing & the prices skyrocket !
That's where the new desal plant is, if you put the nuke plant next door any radioactive leaks can be pumped straight into Adelaide's reservoirs! :D

[frantic]

A plant around the Illawarra or southern highlands (my backyard) and put the waste down one of the old coal mines that we have been digging around here for 150 years.

[Naviguesser]

How is O'Sullivan Beach going ? Thinking of buying there before they turn that into housing & the prices skyrocket !

I live in Crib Point in Vic.

The old BP refinery is not far away, the remains of that have been rusting away for years.

[Eevo]

Strange, my brother has a humungous house w a/c and hydronic heating and a huge solar pv array, it more than covers what he uses, recieving credits on his account even during winter, Dad has a smallish house with proportionally smaller array, neither he nor my brother has paid a power bill since installing.


for some people it works, but you need to look at the whole population.

[Eevo]

Won't work. Residential based solar systems are close to saturation now. The grid can't take much more of them, and the power from them goes nowhere when too many are installed in one area.

In laymens terms you need to increase the voltage to push power into the grid, but if you have too many systems doing this in one area then the voltage rises too high and the solar inverter will stop pushing power out.

This is the main reason the rebate was cut back so far - to limit installation numbers that the infrastructure can't handle. The supply authorities are already struggling with this issue in some areas.


what he said.

in my gf's dads place, him and people in the street keep blowing appliances cause they all have solar and at midday thats mains power is above 255volts
then at night the mains is dropping 215volts

[Slunnie]

There should be a poll for/against nuclear power - then we can make an executive decision! :D

[Tombie]

Put it at Pt Augusta where the old (idling) power stations are.

Rail direct from the Ore body, cooling water...

And that's "in my back yard" (sub 75km)

[Chucaro]

There should be a poll for/against nuclear power - then we can make an executive decision! :D

Yes I am for that ......https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/07/320.jpg

[Eevo]

Put it at Pt Augusta where the old (idling) power stations are.

Rail direct from the Ore body, cooling water...

And that's "in my back yard" (sub 75km)


would be a good place for it

[Chucaro]

would be a good place for it

But were you will dispose the waste, in Gilles Plains ?

[wrinklearthur]

Adelaide? they could feed the hot water into a duplicate water mains.

Just think, Adelaide then would have clean, hot and cold running water.
.

[mox]

For anyone interested in finding out more about nuclear power and various aspects of the nuclear industry, is worth checking the World Nuclear Association website www.world-nuclear.org (http://www.world-nuclear.org)

[Eevo]

But were you will dispose the waste, in Gilles Plains ?

coober pedy.

its a big hole as it is

[Reads90]

Nuclear power is really the only answer for future power if we like it or not.


Aus should do what France does and that is off a small town to have plant near them and the town gets free power and lots of free local services by the government.
So in France you will come across small towns with huge sports centres and cinemas . All really cheap and of course no one pays power bills.

As you imagine they have towns queued up to have a nuclear power plants on their door step.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[London Boy]

Bring it on. As a Pom, I grew up surrounded by nuclear power stations and the Australian objection to them just, for me, doesn't compute.

Chernobyl, even at the worst realistic estimates, killed maybe 60,000 people (by which I mean, shortened the lives of) since it went off. More people have died on Australia's (just Australia's) roads in the same period.

The natural background radiation in e.g. parts of Cornwall is higher than around, say, Dounreay nuclear power station. And so on.

And everyone is worried about the half life of nuclear waste, and how long this toxic material will have to be stored for. What about ocean acidification (I'll leave alone climate change for the moment) and its impact on the global food chain? The oceans take up CO2 and their acidity levels rise. We can see it happening just now. The problem with that is that we can also see a decline in the amount of plankton, which means that everything higher in the food chain also declines. Snapper for dinner? Only while stocks last...

Ultimately, if we don't embrace nuclear, the half life of waste doesn't matter. We will have been swamped much sooner by all the other environmental impacts we're generating.

And no, solar is emphatically NOT the answer. And no, we will not be reducing our energy consumption any time soon.

[Pickles2]

Bring it on. As a Pom, I grew up surrounded by nuclear power stations and the Australian objection to them just, for me, doesn't compute.

Chernobyl, even at the worst realistic estimates, killed maybe 60,000 people (by which I mean, shortened the lives of) since it went off. More people have died on Australia's (just Australia's) roads in the same period.

The natural background radiation in e.g. parts of Cornwall is higher than around, say, Dounreay nuclear power station. And so on.

And everyone is worried about the half life of nuclear waste, and how long this toxic material will have to be stored for. What about ocean acidification (I'll leave alone climate change for the moment) and its impact on the global food chain? The oceans take up CO2 and their acidity levels rise. We can see it happening just now. The problem with that is that we can also see a decline in the amount of plankton, which means that everything higher in the food chain also declines. Snapper for dinner? Only while stocks last...

Ultimately, if we don't embrace nuclear, the half life of waste doesn't matter. We will have been swamped much sooner by all the other environmental impacts we're generating.

And no, solar is emphatically NOT the answer. And no, we will not be reducing our energy consumption any time soon.
+1. Makes good sense to me.
What was the name of the 1st Nuclear Power Stn in the UK.?..Was it Harwell...I think my Brother In Law worked there....one of the oldest...yet NO problems there at all.
Cheers, Pickles.

[bob10]

Bring it on. As a Pom, I grew up surrounded by nuclear power stations and the Australian objection to them just, for me, doesn't compute.

Chernobyl, even at the worst realistic estimates, killed maybe 60,000 people (by which I mean, shortened the lives of) since it went off. More people have died on Australia's (just Australia's) roads in the same period.

.

I'm afraid you are mis-informed. Grossly so. WARNING- children should not watch this video.
I am an advocate of Nuclear power, but of the type China, and some others, are developing. None of it would be 100% safe, but for the future we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. But not at any cost. And certainly not by putting a figure of 60,000 lives as being acceptable. Bob
Chernobyl Decay and Deformed - YouTube (http://youtu.be/rvAJ_u3Q0Hw)

[Eevo]

True radiation really doesn't cause unusual mutation. It is toxic chemicals that will cause mutation and changes in DNA. Radiation will breakdown and decay DNA, but not mutate it. It would take a chemical compound to be absorbed and physically have to change it.

[goingbush]

Bring it on. As a Pom, I grew up surrounded by nuclear power stations and the Australian objection to them just, for me, doesn't compute.

Chernobyl, even at the worst realistic estimates, killed maybe 60,000 people (by which I mean, shortened the lives of) since it went off. More people have died on Australia's (just Australia's) roads in the same period..

mate, if your going to bandy about stats like that take a bit of care to get them right, including ALL of 1986, Aust road deaths to end on 2012 were 51,106

Was Poms like you that buggered up Australia in the first place (by laying claim to it) and more recently thought it fine to Australia as a Atomic test site



Ultimately, if we don't embrace nuclear, the half life of waste doesn't matter. We will have been swamped much sooner by all the other environmental impacts we're generating.

oh, for pity's sake

[bee utey]

True radiation really doesn't cause unusual mutation. It is toxic chemicals that will cause mutation and changes in DNA. Radiation will breakdown and decay DNA, but not mutate it. It would take a chemical compound to be absorbed and physically have to change it.

You could try one day to provide some actual scientific evidence to support your amazing pronouncements.

[wrinklearthur]

You could try one day to provide some actual scientific evidence to support your amazing pronouncements.


True radiation really doesn't cause unusual mutation. It is toxic chemicals that will cause mutation and changes in DNA. Radiation will breakdown and decay DNA, but not mutate it. It would take a chemical compound to be absorbed and physically have to change it.

I would be interested to know more, so when people are making a statement could they back it up if possible, with a reference to their source.

.

[Eevo]

go look up any medical text book on ionising radiation.

[wrinklearthur]

Did this thread start because of the current meeting of Scientists from around the world in Sydney at the moment?


Scientists from around the world are gathered in Sydney to consider the possible future of nuclear energy in Australia.

Ref; Should Australia consider a nuclear future? - ABC Rural (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-25/australia-nuclear-future/4843498)
.

[isuzurover]

go look up any medical text book on ionising radiation.

Sorry but that is far too simplistic.

Of course high (acute) dose ionising radiation causes cell death rather than mutation. But there are still unknowns about chronic doses.

e.g.

Genetic effects of ionizing radiation - some questions with no answers
Author(s): Mosse, IB (Mosse, Irma B.)
Source: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY Volume: 112 Pages: 70-75 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2012.05.009 Published: OCT 2012
Times Cited: 0 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 35 [ view related records ] Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: There are a lot of questions about genetic effects of ionizing radiation, the main one is does ionizing radiation induce mutations in humans? There is no direct evidence that exposure of parents to radiation leads to excess heritable disease in offspring. What is the difference between human and other species in which radiation induced mutations are easily registered? During evolution germ cell selection ex vivo has been changed to a selection in vivo and we cannot observe such selection of radiation damaged cells in human. Low radiation doses are they harmful or beneficial? The "hormesis" phenomenon as well as radioadaptive response proves positive effects of low radiation dose. Can analysis of chromosomal aberration rate in lymphocytes be used for dosimetry? Many uncontrolled factors may be responsible for significant mistakes of this method. Why did evolution preserve the bystander effect? This paper is discussion one and its goal is to pay attention on some effects of ionizing radiation. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Accession Number: WOS:000307694700011
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Author Keywords: Ionizing radiation; Mutations in human; Germ cell selection; Hormesis; Radioadaptive response; Biodosimetry
KeyWords Plus: HIGH BACKGROUND-RADIATION; CHERNOBYL CLEANUP WORKERS; ANKYLOSING-SPONDYLITIS; ADAPTIVE RESPONSE; DOWNS-SYNDROME; X-RAYS; MUTATIONS; CHILDREN; MORTALITY; ACCIDENT

[jx2mad]

Did this thread start because of the current meeting of Scientists from around the world in Sydney at the moment?

Hi Wrinklearthur. Yes. I heard it on the ABC a couple of days ago .Jim

[rb30gtr]

I feel like I am sitting in a science lecture.

For the electricity - What about green energy?

[isuzurover]

I feel like I am sitting in a science lecture.

For the electricity - What about green energy?

The big issue is baseload power. At present, fossil fuels (coal or gas) or nuclear provide almost all the world's baseload power.

Some "green" options like geothermal, ocean swell/tide, solar thermal + storage, etc... can provide baseload power as well, but the technologies are either experimental, very expensive, or the sites where they can be implemented viably are too few and far from the demand. Plus for all apart from Geothermal, a few days with no wind or sun will mean no power.

However, a lot of the issues can be overcome by better grids and smarter power management. It is usually windy or sunny somewhere. The middle of Australia has over 300 sunny days a year...

[KarlB]

All sorts of wild estimates of the total death toll from the Chernobyl disaster exist. The minimum like likely figure seems to be about 30,000 but the most likely figure is estimated at 985,000 mostly from cancer. This later figure comes from Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment written by Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity. The book is published by the New York Academy of Sciences. You can download a copy from here: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf (http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf) ( NB: size is 4.29 MB )

Cheers
KarlB


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/07/282.jpg

[rb30gtr]

The big issue is baseload power. At present, fossil fuels (coal or gas) or nuclear provide almost all the world's baseload power.

Some "green" options like geothermal, ocean swell/tide, solar thermal + storage, etc... can provide baseload power as well, but the technologies are either experimental, very expensive, or the sites where they can be implemented viably are too few and far from the demand. Plus for all apart from Geothermal, a few days with no wind or sun will mean no power.

However, a lot of the issues can be overcome by better grids and smarter power management. It is usually windy or sunny somewhere. The middle of Australia has over 300 sunny days a year...

Good points. So what is the resolution, an even mix of all sources?

[Yorkie]

Was Poms like you that buggered up Australia in the first place (by laying claim to it) and more recently thought it fine to Australia as a Atomic test site


you think it would have been any better if the french found this place first? :p


The big issue is baseload power. At present, fossil fuels (coal or gas) or nuclear provide almost all the world's baseload power.

Some "green" options like geothermal, ocean swell/tide, solar thermal + storage, etc... can provide baseload power as well, but the technologies are either experimental, very expensive, or the sites where they can be implemented viably are too few and far from the demand. Plus for all apart from Geothermal, a few days with no wind or sun will mean no power.

However, a lot of the issues can be overcome by better grids and smarter power management. It is usually windy or sunny somewhere. The middle of Australia has over 300 sunny days a year...

and when its dark the solar systems provide how much power?.
i am all for greener ways to generate power but that baseload eveyone talks about needs to come from somewhere and nuclear is the answer. :)

[isuzurover]

and when its dark the solar systems provide how much power?.
i am all for greener ways to generate power but that baseload eveyone talks about needs to come from somewhere and nuclear is the answer. :)

Solar thermal + storage (usually molten salt) can provide power for 24/7.
Gemasolar - The World's First Baseload (24/7) Solar Power Plant - YouTube

[PeterM]

mate, if your going to bandy about stats like that take a bit of care to get them right, including ALL of 1986, Aust road deaths to end on 2012 were 51,106

Was Poms like you that buggered up Australia in the first place (by laying claim to it) and more recently thought it fine to Australia as a Atomic test site

oh, for pity's sake

5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

WHO | Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/)


Waste disposal
Final disposal of high-level waste is delayed for 40-50 years to allow its radioactivity to decay, after which less than one thousandth of its initial radioactivity remains, and it is much easier to handle. Hence canisters of vitrified waste, or used fuel assemblies, are stored under water in special ponds, or in dry concrete structures or casks, for at least this length of time.
The ultimate disposal of vitrified wastes, or of used fuel assemblies without reprocessing, requires their isolation from the environment for a long time. The most favoured method is burial in stable geological formations some 500 metres deep. Several countries are investigating sites that would be technically and publicly acceptable, and in Sweden and Finland construction is proceeding in 1.9 billion year-old granites.
One purpose-built deep geological repository for long-lived nuclear waste (though only from defence applications) is already operating in New Mexico, in a salt formation.
After being buried for about 1000 years most of the radioactivity will have decayed. The amount of radioactivity then remaining would be similar to that of the corresponding amount of naturally-occurring uranium ore from which it originated, though it would be more concentrated.

Waste Management Overview (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Waste-Management-Overview/#.UfH2no03Cbk)

[Yorkie]

thanks.
playing devils advocate though surely not all days you will get perfect sun light so you still need something to top up the grid during those times?.

[PeterM]

Hydro is the only reliable and viable form of renewable energy at this time. Everything else is either unable to provide base load power, theoretically possible or impractical to employ for base load generation.

[101RRS]

Hydro is the only reliable and viable form of renewable energy at this time. Everything else is either unable to provide base load power, theoretically possible or impractical to employ for base load generation.

But has a huge environmental impact on the river system that it sits on.

[isuzurover]

Hydro is the only reliable and viable form of renewable energy at this time. Everything else is either unable to provide base load power, theoretically possible or impractical to employ for base load generation.


See above. The Gemasolar plant has been providing baseload power since may 2011.

Busting the baseload power myth › Opinion (ABC Science) (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.htm)



thanks.
playing devils advocate though surely not all days you will get perfect sun light so you still need something to top up the grid during those times?.

Of course. But it is easy to have a standby gas turbine - which is quick to start and stop.

[Yorkie]

Of course. But it is easy to have a standby gas turbine - which is quick to start and stop.

just as easy to have a nuclear reactor running, no gases from burning off, and after all nuclear is nearly green energy as if comes out of the ground. :D

[wrinklearthur]

What is needed is a device that takes the spent but still highly radioactive waste and processes it into a benign substance.

This process could be a solution to the storage problem.

Ref; http://www.google.com/patents/US20030004389

Even Hydro Dams have risk.


I agree that living with a properly designed and located nuclear plant would be quite safe these days.
A lot safer to live with than say living in the valley below a concrete 1930's Hydro dam that was built across the fault line the river runs in.
.

Did anyone spot the problem here?


The Artificial Leaf - Renewable Energy (http://www.flixxy.com/the-artificial-leaf-renewable-energy.htm)
.

Ref; Edible Oil Processing - Google Books (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=-R6BrfKyKJMC&pg=PT317&lpg=PT317&dq=vessel+that+is+found+to+prevent+Hydrogen+escapi ng&source=bl&ots=r2_b6vTlRn&sig=zOZiI05qsg97X0abh5cGDCd1wHs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Xf_xUZiUM8LElAWhgIHACw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=vessel%20that%20is%20found%20to%20prevent%20Hydr ogen%20escaping&f=false)

[isuzurover]

just as easy to have a nuclear reactor running, no gases from burning off, and after all nuclear is nearly green energy as if comes out of the ground. :D

Nuclear is a lot slower to start and stop. Even swanbank coal power station has RR turbines converted to run on NG/diesel to generate baseload if the main power station is shutdown or to cover peaks.

Nuclear is not as green as you think. Once you factor in all the energy required to store the fuel safely and the FULL cleanup on decommissioning.

They dug up the entire carpark etc around Lucas heights as "low grade" nuclear waste. Last I heard it was sitting in 44 gallon drums in a warehouse somewhere.

The coal + geosequestration crowd think they can get it delivered cheaper than nuclear.

Note that I am not opposed to nuclear. However it is not as cheap or as green as most people think.

[bob10]

True radiation really doesn't cause unusual mutation. It is toxic chemicals that will cause mutation and changes in DNA. Radiation will breakdown and decay DNA, but not mutate it. It would take a chemical compound to be absorbed and physically have to change it.

Mutation is the least of your worries, Bob [ whilst in the RAN, I spent a couple of years as an NBCD instructor. Nuclear, Biological and Chemical defence. Doesn't mean I am an expert, by any means. But the subject frightened the hell out of me. The standing joke was " what do you do in the event of a Nuclear or Biological attack? put your head between your knees, and kiss your rear end goodbye". Bob


Radiation Effects on Humans




Radiation occurs when unstable nuclei of atoms decay and release particles. There are many different types of radiation (http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/radiation_types.html). When these particles touch various organic material such as tissue, damage may, and probably will, be done. Radiation can cause burns, cancers, and death.
Units of Measurement


The unit used to measure radiation dosage is the rem, which stands for roentgen equivalent in man. It represents the amount of radiation needed to produce a particular amount of damage to living tissue. The total dose of rems determines how much harm a person suffers. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people received a dose of rems at the instant of the explosions, then more from the surroundings and, in limited areas, from fallout. Fallout is composed of radioactive particles that are carried into the upper atmosphere by a nuclear explosion and that eventually fall back to the earth's surface.
Effects of Radiation Exposure on Human Health


Although a dose of just 25 rems causes some detectable changes in blood, doses to near 100 rems usually have no immediate harmful effects. Doses above 100 rems cause the first signs of radiation sickness including:

nausea
vomiting
headache
some loss of white blood cells
Doses of 300 rems or more cause temporary hair loss, but also more significant internal harm, including damage to nerve cells and the cells that line the digestive tract. Severe loss of white blood cells, which are the body's main defense against infection, makes radiation victims highly vulnerable to disease. Radiation also reduces production of blood platelets, which aid blood clotting, so victims of radiation sickness are also vulnerable to hemorrhaging. Half of all people exposed to 450 rems die, and doses of 800 rems or more are always fatal. Besides the symptoms mentioned above, these people also suffer from fever and diarrhea. As of yet, there is no effective treatment--so death occurs within two to fourteen days.
In time, for survivors, diseases such as leukemia (cancer of the blood), lung cancer, thyroid cancer, breast cancer, and cancers of other organs can appear due to the radiation received.
Major Radiation Exposure in Real Life Events

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

For more information on what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, consult the nuclear past page (http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/past.html) and the nuclear warfare page (http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_warfare.html).
Many people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki died not directly from the actual explosion, but from the radiation released as a result of the explosion. For example, a fourteen-year-old boy was admitted to a Hiroshima hospital two days after the explosion, suffering from a high fever and nausea. Nine days later his hair began to fall out. His supply of white blood cells dropped lower and lower. On the seventeenth day he began to bleed from his nose, and on the twenty-first day he died.
At Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the few surviving doctors observed symptoms of radiation sickness for the first time. In his book Nagasaki 1945, Dr. Tatsuichiro Akizuki wrote of the puzzling, unknown disease, of symptoms that "suddenly appeared in certain patients with no apparent injuries." Several days after the bombs exploded, doctors learned that they were treating the effects of radiation exposure. "We were now able to label our unknown adversary 'atomic disease' or 'radioactive contamination' among other names. But they were only labels: we knew nothing about its cause or cure... Within seven to ten days after the A-bomb explosion, people began to die in swift succession. They died of the burns that covered their bodies and of acute atomic disease. Innumerable people who had been burnt turned a mulberry color, like worms, and died... The disease," wrote Dr. Akizuki, "destroyed them little by little. As a doctor, I was forced to face the slow and certain deaths of my patients."
Doctors and nurses had no idea of how their own bodies had been affected by radioactivity. Dr. Akizuki wrote, "All of us suffered from diarrhea and a discharge of blood from the gums, but we kept this to ourselves. Each of us thought: tomorrow it might be me... We became stricken with fear of the future." Dr. Akizuki survived, as did several hundred thousand others in or near Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, at least ten people who had fled from Hiroshima to Nagasaki survived both bombs.
The survivors have suffered physically from cataracts, leukemia and other cancers, malformed offspring, and premature aging, and also emotionally, from social discrimination. Within a few months of the nuclear explosions, leukemia began to appear among the survivors at an abnormally high rate. Some leukemia victims were fetuses within their mothers' wombs when exposed to radiation. One child who was born two days after the Hiroshima explosion eventually died of acute leukemia at the age of eighteen. The number of leukemia cases has declined with time, but the incidence of lung cancer, thyroid cancer, breast cancer, and cancers of other organs has increased among the survivors.
Three Mile Island

For more information on what happened at Three Mile Island, consult the nuclear past page (http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/TMI.html).
On a Wednesday morning, maintenance workers cleaning sludge from a small pipe blocked the flow of water in the main feedwater system of a reactor at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The sift foreman heard "loud, thunderous noises, like a couple of freight trains," coming. Since the reactor was still producing heat, it heated the blocked cooling water around its core hot enough to create enough pressure to have popped a relief valve. Some 220 gallons of water per minute began flowing out of the reactor vessel. Within five minutes after the main feedwater system failed, the reactor, deprived of all normal and emergency sources of cooling water, and no longer able to use its enormous energy to generate electricity, gradually started to tear itself apart.
The loss of coolant at the reactor continued for some 16 hours. Abort a third of the core melted down. Radioactive water flowed through the stuck relief valve into an auxiliary building, where it pooled on the floor. Radioactive gas was released into the atmosphere. An estimated 140,000 people were evacuated from the area. It took a month to stabilize the malfunctioning unit and safely shut it down. The reactor was a total loss and the cleanup required years of repair and hundreds of millions of dollars.
No one was reported injured and the little radiation that leaked out was quickly dispersed. Although this accident did cost lots of money and time, no one was hurt.
Chernobyl

For more information on what happened at Chernobyl, consult the nuclear past page (http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/Chernobyl.html).
A far more serious accident occured at Chernobyl, in what was then still the Soviet Union. At the time of the accident, the Chernobyl nuclear power station consisted of four operating 1,000 megawatt power reactors. Without question, the accident at Chernobyl was the result of a fatal combination of ignorance and complacency. "As members of a select scientific panel convened immediately after the... accident," writes Nobel laureate Hans Bethe, "my colleagues and I established that the Chernobyl disaster tells us about the deficiencies of the Soviet political and administrative system rather than about problems with nuclear power."
Although the problem at Chernobyl was relatively complex, it can basically be summarized as a mismanaged electrical engineering experiment which resulted in the reactor exploding. The explosion was chemical, driven by gases and steam generated by the core runaway, not by nuclear reactions. Flames, sparks, and chunks of burning material were flying into the air above the unit. These were red-hot pieces of nuclear fuel and graphite. About 50 tons of nuclear fuel evaporated and were released by the explosion into the atmosphere. In addition, about 70 tons were ejected sideways from the periphery of the core. Some 50 tons of nuclear fuel and 800 tons of reactor graphite remained in the reactor vault, where it formed a pit reminiscent of a volcanic crater as the graphite still in the reactor had turned up completely in a few days after the explosion.
The resulting radioactive release was equivalent to ten Hiroshimas. In fact, since the Hiroshima bomb was air-burst--no part of the fireball touched the ground--the Chernobyl release polluted the countryside much more than ten Hiroshimas would have done. Many people died from the explosion and even more from the effects of the radiation later. Still today, people are dying from the radiation caused by the Chernobyl accident. The estimated total number of deaths will be 16,000.
Medical Treatment

For a more in-depth view of current medical technologies available to the treatment of radiation, go to the medical imaging page (http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/medical_imaging.html).
There is currently no effective medical treatment available for potentially fatal radiation doses. The case of the Japanese boy mentioned above illustrates an important fact about radiation sickness. The boy had probably received a dose of 450 rems or more, yet his symptoms were about the same as those of a person who received about 300 rems. Medical science has no way of telling the difference between people who have received fatal doses and will die despite all efforts and others who received less radiation and can be saved. Treatment for the ones that can be saved includes blood transfusions and bone-marrow transplants. Bone-marrow transplants rejuvenate the supply of white blood cells which was affected by the radiation.
Related Sites

If you have questions, comments, or anything else to say, contact the forum (http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/forum.html).

[disco63]

The company i work for in Brisbane is French based.About 4 years ago a delegation of engineers ( who make reactors) from France had a look over our facility, the product we were making is one of the constituents used in reactors/fuel rods. They told us at the time that, their projection for nuclear power plant construction was increasing ten fold.I think Fukushima may have had an impact on the construction of nuclear power plants.I think nuclear power plants are a great idea, until something goes wrong. Everyone put you hand up if you want one within 100 km of where you live.Most people would have the nimby Syndrome. NOT IN MY BACKYARD .

[bee utey]

Hydroelectric power is not nearly as green as you think.

Hydroelectric Dams Produce 20 Times more Methane Gas when Water Level is Low (http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Hydroelectric/Hydroelectric-Dams-Produce-20-Times-more-Methane-Gas-when-Water-Level-is-Low.html)

New hydro dams in wilderness area drown huge amounts of vegetable matter that rots and produces methane. And Australia couldn't add a lot of hydro without losing productive land in any case. Nuclear might indeed be greener.

However Australia should invest heavily in solar thermal storage plants and geothermal (hot rocks) energy supplies as they produce the lowest greenhouse emissions of any base load technology available. Port Augusta in SA is one of the best sites available for solar thermal technology, major power infrastructure (ancient coal fired plants and their distribution network) is already in place, cooling water and stinking hot weather are there too.

Lastly, "base load" used to be what you sold cheaply to heat off peak domestic hot water, how does that compute these days with substantial solar hot water system take-up?

[bob10]

you think it would have been any better if the french found this place first? :p


Your ignorance of our history is annoying, neither the English, nor French " found this place". I suggest all nuclear waste from future power plants be shipped to England, and buried there. Seems fair to me. Some of your ex-servicemen would probably agree it should be buried under the House of Parliament. Bob



A toxic legacy : British nuclear weapons testing in Australia (http://aic.gov.au/publications/previous%20series/lcj/1-20/wayward/ch16.html)


aic.gov.au/publications/previous%20series/lcj/1-20/.../ch16.html‎

Cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sQ8j1H3Ml5oJ:aic.gov.au/publications/previous%2520series/lcj/1-20/wayward/ch16.html+effects+on+health+in+australia+frem+the+ british+nuclear+bomb+tests&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au)



The effect of exploding an atomic weapon in the Monte Bello Islands will be to .... of the health consequences of nuclear weapons testing in Australia would ...


British nuclear tests at Maralinga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga‎

Cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:J_zaZodAepkJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga+effects+on+heal th+in+australia+frem+the+british+nuclear+bomb+test s&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au)
[url]Similar



Debate continued over the safety of the site and the long-term health effects on the ..... Britain, Australia and the Bomb: The Nuclear Tests and their Aftermath.


[URL="http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/the-united-kingdomsnuclear-testing-programme/"]The United Kingdom's Nuclear Testing Programme: CTBTO ... (http://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1024&bih=643&q=related:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga+effects+on+heal th+in+australia+from+the+british+nuclear+bomb+test s&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=SRnyUYKUI8jliAf5wIDQBQ&ved=0CDYQHzAB)


Home: CTBTO Preparatory Commission (http://www.ctbto.org/)nuclear-testing/...effects...nuclear-testing/the-united-king...‎

Cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ld9KuwfpUlQJ:www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/the-united-kingdomsnuclear-testing-programme/+effects+on+health+in+australia+frem+the+british+n uclear+bomb+tests&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au)



One Tree explosion, 27 September 1956, part of the Operation Buffalo test series. ... Seven nuclear tests were carried out at Maralinga in South Australia between 1956 .... The health impacts of the tests were highlighted by the British Nuclear ...


Summary - British Nuclear Weapons Tests in Australia | Friends of ... (http://foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/britbombs/summary)


foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/britbombs/summary‎

Cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eD_WIghpoQsJ:foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/britbombs/summary+effects+on+health+in+australia+frem+the+br itish+nuclear+bomb+tests&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au)



In “Fallout – Hedley Marston and the British Bomb Tests in Australia” ... “Public Health Impact of Fallout from British Nuclear Weapons Tests in Australia, 1952 ...


On this day: Australia's first atomic bomb test - Australian Geographic (http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/on-this-day-in-history-first-atomic-bomb-test-in-australia.htm)


www.australian (http://www.<b>australian</b>)geographic.com.au/.../on-this-day-in-history-first-atomic-...‎

Cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wuRf839XAvMJ:www.australiangeograph ic.com.au/journal/on-this-day-in-history-first-atomic-bomb-test-in-australia.htm+effects+on+health+in+australia+frem+ the+british+nuclear+bomb+tests&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au)



Oct 4, 2011 - On 3 October 1952, Britain tested its first atomic weapon off the coast of ... health effects of the radiation that arose from the weapons testing.


Maralinga: How British nuclear tests changed history forever ... (http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/maralinga-how-british-nuclear-tests-changed-history-forever)


Creative Spirits - Aboriginal Australia, Photography and Poems (http://www.creativespirits.info) › Aboriginal culture (http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/) › History (http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/)‎

Cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qOWGIzmgBhEJ:www.creativespirits.in fo/aboriginalculture/history/maralinga-how-british-nuclear-tests-changed-history-forever+effects+on+health+in+australia+frem+the+br itish+nuclear+bomb+tests&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au)



In the 1950s the Australian government authorised British nuclear tests on Anangu ... Britain went on to test 12 atmospheric nuclear bombs at Maralinga. .... Big Fella is the story about the crippling health effects of diabetes and obesity in ...


British Atomic Testing In Australia - allshookup.org (http://allshookup.org/quakes/atomic.htm)


allshookup.org/quakes/atomic.htm‎

Cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ww_naY9M1_0J:allshookup.org/quakes/atomic.htm+effects+on+health+in+australia+frem+the +british+nuclear+bomb+tests&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au)
[url]Similar



The Buffalo atomic tests were the fourth in a series conducted in Australia. In 1952 and 1956, the British had fired atomic bombs on the deserted Monte Bello .... 90 concentration in atmospheric dust over Japan constituted a hazard to health.


[URL="http://australianmap.net/monte-bello-islands/"]Monte Bello Islands | Australian Map of Nuclear and Uranium Sites (http://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1024&bih=643&q=related:allshookup.org/quakes/atomic.htm+effects+on+health+in+australia+from+the +british+nuclear+bomb+tests&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=SRnyUYKUI8jliAf5wIDQBQ&ved=0CFQQHzAG)


australianmap.net/monte-bello-islands/‎

Cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y-P2Vo9YyzYJ:australianmap.net/monte-bello-islands/+effects+on+health+in+australia+frem+the+british+n uclear+bomb+tests&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au)



An educational resource featuring photos and videos on Australia's nuclear sites inc. ... The British government / military conducted three nuclear bomb tests at ... extra vulnerability to the effect of fallout was not recognised by either [Atomic ... the Federal Government and appropriate health care for them and their children.


Human Nuclear Experiments - Nuclear Files (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/ethics/issues/scientific/human-nuclear-experiments.htm)


Nuclear Files - From nuclear proliferation to nuclear testing, from Hiroshima to North Korea, Nuclear Files offers the A to Z on nuclear issues. (http://www.nuclearfiles.org) › Key Issues (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/index.htm) › Ethics (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/ethics/index.htm) › Issues (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/ethics/issues/index.htm)‎

Cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5NHFppqjMd8J:www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/ethics/issues/scientific/human-nuclear-experiments.htm+effects+on+health+in+australia+fre m+the+british+nuclear+bomb+tests&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au)
[url]Similar



The UK detonated 12 atomic bombs in Australia between 1952 and 1957. .... the effects nuclear testing and production would have on human health and the ...


[URL="http://www.nuclearveterans.com/breaking_news.html"]Nuclear Veterans :: Breaking News (http://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1024&bih=643&q=related:www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/ethics/issues/scientific/human-nuclear-experiments.htm+effects+on+health+in+australia+fro m+the+british+nuclear+bomb+tests&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=SRnyUYKUI8jliAf5wIDQBQ&ved=0CGMQHzAI)


www.nuclear (http://www.<b>nuclear</b>)veterans.com/breaking_news.html‎

Cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QCbL5j2m9ckJ:www.nuclearveterans.co m/breaking_news.html+effects+on+health+in+australia+ frem+the+british+nuclear+bomb+tests&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au)
[url][URL="http://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1024&bih=643&q=related:www.nuclearveterans.com/breaking_news.html+effects+on+health+in+australia+ from+the+british+nuclear+bomb+tests&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=SRnyUYKUI8jliAf5wIDQBQ&ved=0CGkQHzAJ"]Similar



“But they don't know what happened in between these wars and the effects it had on ... South Tyneside A-bomb test veterans John Taylor, Bede McGurk and Bob ... Mr Taylor, a member of the British Nuclear Veterans' Association, was an RAF aircraftman in Maralinga, Australia, when he witnessed three nuclear tests in ...

[Yorkie]

Your ignorance of our history is annoying, neither the English, nor French " found this place". I suggest all nuclear waste from future power plants be shipped to England, and buried there. Seems fair to me. Some of your ex-servicemen would probably agree it should be buried under the House of Parliament. Bob



apologies, forgot sarcasim was prohibted!.
i am aware of quite a bit of australian history and certainly not ignorant to such things, but thanks for asking.
:)

[123rover50]

So what energy powers the sun?
What energy powers the furnace in the centre of the earth.?
The emissions from this via volcanoes are not radioactive.
Reproduce this on the surface to solve the problems;)

[Ferret]

Everyone put you hand up if you want one within 100 km of where you live.Most people would have the nimby Syndrome. NOT IN MY BACKYARD .

Visited Taiwan a while back and had a look around the Maan Shan nuclear power station built right on the beach in the middle of a popular tourist district.

People were down on the beach swimming adjacent to and within sight of the reactor domes, cooling water inlet and outlets :eek:

Different people certainly have different ideas on what's acceptable re the location of such things :D

Google Maps: Maan Shan Nuclear Power Station (https://maps.google.com/maps'll=21.95841,120.762427&spn=0.016876,0.025964&t=h&z=16)

[bob10]

apologies, forgot sarcasim was prohibted!.
i am aware of quite a bit of australian history and certainly not ignorant to such things, but thanks for asking.
:)

Yorkie, English sarcasm gets me every time. I' m just a naïve colonial, Bob :D [ surprised you didn't pick up on the " house " of parliament]

[Reads90]

mate, if your going to bandy about stats like that take a bit of care to get them right, including ALL of 1986, Aust road deaths to end on 2012 were 51,106

Was Poms like you that buggered up Australia in the first place (by laying claim to it) and more recently thought it fine to Australia as a Atomic test site



oh, for pity's sake

Well could have had the Spanish, or Portuguese "invade " Australia


That went really well for the Incas and the Mayans.

And if none of them had " invaded " Australia then you recon China, Japan and USA would have left it alone by now.

I think Australia should be thankfull the Poms did "invade" before every one else had chance to. Best of a bad lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[Naviguesser]

Everyone put you hand up if you want one within 100 km of where you live.Most people would have the nimby Syndrome. NOT IN MY BACKYARD .

No hands up smiley. But put me down for hands up as per my post earlier in the thread.

[d2dave]

Have not read this thread, but my thoughts.

I would not have any problems with one (or many) in Southern Australia. I believe that a modern nuclear power plant built with 21st century technology, in a stable place that does not have cyclones, would be fine.

Would I want it in my back yard? If I could not see it or here it, and provided that there was no measurable radiation emitted, I would have no problem if it was down the road.

[bob10]

Well could have had the Spanish, or Portuguese "invade " Australia


That went really well for the Incas and the Mayans.

And if none of them had " invaded " Australia then you recon China, Japan and USA would have left it alone by now.

I think Australia should be thankfull the Poms did "invade" before every one else had chance to. Best of a bad lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

A bit off topic, but you really should study history a bit, about the only mob to not be involved in early Australian history would be the USA [ are you serious?] & Japan, back to nuclear power I suggest, Bob

[Hay Ewe]

Visited Taiwan a while back and had a look around the Maan Shan nuclear power station built right on the beach in the middle of a popular tourist district.

People were down on the beach swimming adjacent to and within sight of the reactor domes, cooling water inlet and outlets :eek:

Different people certainly have different ideas on what's acceptable re the location of such things :D

Google Maps: Maan Shan Nuclear Power Station (https://maps.google.com/maps'll=21.95841,120.762427&spn=0.016876,0.025964&t=h&z=16)

I had to do a task for work today looking at countries / time zones / day light savings. Of all the countries in our part of the world (from Pakistan to Philippines down to New Zealand) only AUS and NZL have daylight saving. This was bit of a revelation to me and indicated that supposedly 'developed' and 'first world' countries seemed to over think things, making things more complicated than they really are.

Taiwan probably calculated that in 7 years time they would need X amount more electricity, best start building now. Yep, over there will be fine. Where as in some countries it will get over thought, over analysised and over budget!

[Eevo]

cheap electricity

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

solar is not cheap

[Flipper]

I am against nuclear energy for the fact it causes huge pollution problems mining the materials, and for the next few thousand years people have to worry about the so called spent fuel rods which require constant cooling. There is more to it if you study the facts on this energy source and it is quite worrying.
However I have read science documents on Coal fire power plants where they emit more radiation in the air than a Nuclear power plant running.
Then you have solar power which is costly and not so efficient. However it will not be long before solar tech will be improved many times more in the next few years.
Solar energy has provided food and plantation for every person who has ever lived on this planet for thousands of years if not millions, and it will be soon efficiently converted to electricity from my research.

I will not fall for the scam of global warming, and I will not fall for the scam of over population.
I will also not fall for the scam of nuclear energy being safe and clean energy when it is the total opposite!

All the Zombies out there (on antidepressants and other chemical drug use) who want the nuclear death scene for you and your grandchildren in your own back yard,,,, Oh boy we sure have a very sick and sorry country now in Australia.

Nuclear energy is not clean! It is pure evil and a deadly contaminate that lasts for thousands of years where most scientist have no clue what to do with the contaminating waste product.(Yes some do but it costs Trillions if there idea works) Idiots with Nuclear propaganda as there agenda have no heart and could not care less for there families survival many years from now..

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT CLEAN ENERGY.!!!

[JamesB71]

True radiation really doesn't cause unusual mutation. It is toxic chemicals that will cause mutation and changes in DNA. Radiation will breakdown and decay DNA, but not mutate it. It would take a chemical compound to be absorbed and physically have to change it.

I'm afraid not true.

[JamesB71]

So what energy powers the sun?
What energy powers the furnace in the centre of the earth.?
The emissions from this via volcanoes are not radioactive.
Reproduce this on the surface to solve the problems;)

Are you serious?

[Eevo]

. However it will not be long before solar tech will be improved many times more in the next few years.

I will also not fall for the scam of nuclear energy being safe and clean energy
NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT CLEAN ENERGY.!!!

Be great if solar could do this but I'm not holding my breath.


Btw, the making and decommishning of solar panels is not clean and quite toxic.

[jx2mad]

How did I start this can of worms?:o:o

[wrinklearthur]

Is the use of Electricity the real evil?

To generate electricity on a large scale, look at the disruption to the environment.
Water backed up from dams must flood valleys.
Coal must be burnt to produce steam and the CO2 pollution is immediate.
Internal combustion engines powering generators run on fuel drawn from a finite resource and produce CO2 pollution.
Nuclear fuel used while generating electricity, when spent remains the most toxic substance to life on earth.

Before electricity became available to the general population, look at the life style that people lived.

There was no worries from Nuclear poisoning ( except Marie Curie, did she die not from old age but prematurely from radiation poisoning ??? aged 67 ).

No global warming ??? hadn't the last ice age finished tens of thousand years ago and if the graph of the rate of world ice melt was started then, the graph is just following a bell curve?
The curve peak may not be far off, then it should follow back towards the next ice age and that would be tens of thousands away as the bell curve is played out.

To reverse the melt and start forming ice in the glaciers and ice caps there needs to be two events happen simultaneously, a huge increase in evaporation from the seas and sudden decrease in the worlds ambient air temperature. Wind, snow and rain ?

Was there no mutations causing gross deformities in births of mammals in the past?
Doctors of the time used to keep items of interest on their surgery room mantelpiece and often had a pickle jar with a deformed foetus immersed in formaldehyde.

Ref; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickled_punks

Ref; Carnival sideshow freaks from 19th century New York | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165807/Carnival-sideshow-freaks-19th-century-New-York.html)

.

[wrinklearthur]

How did I start this can of worms?:o:o

The pen is mightier than the sword.

And the computer is quicker than the pen.
.

[Chucaro]

As long as no one come with the idea of nuclear plants in Tasmania and the the proverbial wins keep coming for southwest I do not worry much about it.
Talking about global warming I just wonder by how much have increased the pollutions since the Chinese stopped using the "pedal power" and start using cars?

[frantic]

Actually that is a great idea chucaro putting several nuke plants in Tassie. A stable state(both people and geo) with plenty of water to cool the nuke plants, there is already a cable to send the power to the mainland and it would provide more employment. :D As for the waste, Queenstowns's open cut could be a good place as it already looks like a environmental "what not to do" video. For those not familiar do a google image search;) . Basically your driving through beautiful Tassie forest then you go around a corner a few k's out of town and its rocks with a few weeds and scrawny shrubs hanging on for life. Back when the first copper smelter was there in the early 1900's they did not bother with coal and just burnt any tree or bush they could grab. This allowed most of the topsoil to wash away leaving nothing for plants to grow in, combine that with the acid rain from the smelters and it killed everything. We where there about 16 years ago and the creek was flowing fast but was so thick with mud you could almost walk on it. The copper mine has gone underground but the big hole from the almost century of open cut mining is still there with plenty of water to cool say old nuke rods etc.
Queenstown, Tasmania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenstown,_Tasmania)

[Ferret]

... and for the next few thousand years people have to worry about the so called spent fuel rods which require constant cooling.

Spent fuel rods need cooling for maybe ~10 - 20 years, sometimes less. It depends how depleted they have become while in service and their length of service.

What you do after pond cooling is still problematic but saying you need constant cooling for thousands of years is off the mark.

[Eevo]

Why does Japan have so many nuke plants?

Cause they signed the koyoto protocol and couldn't build coal plants.

Electricity is turning 1 form of energy into another (electrical)
All forms of energy have side affects.

What's worse, coal plant with co2 or nuke plant with waste?
Both stay around for a long long time.

[Chucaro]

Actually that is a great idea chucaro putting several nuke plants in Tassie. A stable state(both people and geo) with plenty of water to cool the nuke plants, there is already a cable to send the power to the mainland and it would provide more employment. :D As for the waste, Queenstowns's open cut could be a good place as it already looks like a environmental "what not to do" video. ........................
We do not need nature vandalism here in Tasmania and regarding Queenstown the tree regeneration is well under way.
Mother nature is so powerful that soon or later it reclaim the land that humans have taken for granted.
We have good power generation resources and we keep installing more win farms.
Keep the vandals on the other side of the pond please :)
If the people in the main land want power let them use what it is capable for generate the territory over there.
Perhaps domestic win generators and solar panels will be part of the solution over there combined with Aladdin lamps.
Here (http://www.mdpub.com/Wind_Turbine/) is an idea for making a domestic win vane

[Offender90]

We do not need nature vandalism here in Tasmania and regarding Queenstown the tree regeneration is well under way.
Mother nature is so powerful that soon or later it reclaim the land that humans have taken for granted.
We have good power generation resources and we keep installing more win farms.
Keep the vandals on the other side of the pond please :)
If the people in the main land want power let them use what it is capable for generate the territory over there.
Perhaps domestic win generators and solar panels will be part of the solution over there combined with Aladdin lamps.
Here (http://www.mdpub.com/Wind_Turbine/) is an idea for making a domestic win vane

Domestic wind generators are fine for remote rural properties, or even low density hobby farms, but not so suitable in built up environments because of inherent noise generation. Especially in the case of that home built jobbie with straight cut gears and bent sheet steel blades.

[bee utey]

Why does Japan have so many nuke plants?

Cause they signed the koyoto protocol and couldn't build coal plants.



Woot?

Nuclear power in Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#History)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

[ramblingboy42]

the "footprint" required to build a nuclear power station is massive, using vast amounts of power generated from "conventional" resources. A uranium enrichment plant needs to be built to make the fuel, etc etc etc. Same goes for solar cells, very inefficient manufacturing process. Same goes for electric cars, they are clean where they go but they have to charge batteries from conventional power sources. Wind farms again have a massive footprint. Led lights are so expensive to produce most councils and govt bodies cant justify the purchase and installation costs that require a 30yr payback time before breaking even over conventional. It all comes down to expenditure and payback time in the development of any alternative power.

[Chucaro]

Domestic wind generators are fine for remote rural properties, or even low density hobby farms, but not so suitable in built up environments because of inherent noise generation. Especially in the case of that home built jobbie with straight cut gears and bent sheet steel blades.

That is an idea that perhaps is had been introduced by companies against alternative power generation.
Venturi based win generators (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Home_Energy_Energy_Ball) are low in noise, produce more power than blade generators at less win speed and are used in many cities in the world.

[bee utey]

Lifecycle energy cost payback time.


Same goes for solar cells, very inefficient manufacturing process.


1-4 years depending on the panel design.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Solar Energy Payback | Solaria Corporation (http://www.solaria.com/products/payback.html)



Wind farms again have a massive footprint.
Less that 1 year

Comparing energy payback (http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/sustainability/sustainable-products/life-cycle-assessment/comparing-energy-payback-1.aspx)



http://www.vestas.com/files/Filer/EN/Sustainability/Tabel_120220.jpg


Led lights are so expensive to produce most councils and govt bodies cant justify the purchase and installation costs that require a 30yr payback time before breaking even over conventional. It all comes down to expenditure and payback time in the development of any alternative power.

Looked at LED prices lately? Prices (like computer prices) have halved every year as output per watt increases rapidly. LEDs now have double the light output per watt compared to fluorescents, and they have a way to go with recent technological advances.

Philips shatters LED efficiency record | SmartPlanet (http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/philips-shatters-led-efficiency-record/17268)

I have progressively replaced 100W tungstens with 20W CFLs and now the latest 7W LED globes, still as bright as ever.

[Offender90]

That is an idea that perhaps is had been introduced by companies against alternative power generation.
Venturi based win generators (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Home_Energy_Energy_Ball) are low in noise, produce more power than blade generators at less win speed and are used in many cities in the world.

As an acoustics engineer who has led a number of micro wind turbine noise assessments in urban environments (including the wind turbines on a prominent building in Perth's CBD), I can tell you it is impractical to generate a meaningful amount of electricity in built up environments without considerable noise impacts.

I've also read more than my fair share of "quiet" wind turbines marketing materials, only to be told by the companies they don't actually have any noise vs wind sound power data... And that after numerous email and phonecall ping pong. I'd be happy if that wasn't the case, but that's my personal opinion based on experience to date.

[isuzurover]

That is an idea that perhaps is had been introduced by companies against alternative power generation.
Venturi based win generators (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Home_Energy_Energy_Ball) are low in noise, produce more power than blade generators at less win speed and are used in many cities in the world.

Arthur, Offender90 is an acoustics engineer who has been involved in a number of wind turbine projects.

EDIT - looks like Bojan beat me to it...

[sashadidi]

All sorts of wild estimates of the total death toll from the Chernobyl disaster exist. The minimum like likely figure seems to be about 30,000 but the most likely figure is estimated at 985,000 mostly from cancer. This later figure comes from Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment written by Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity. The book is published by the New York Academy of Sciences. You can download a copy from here: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf (http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf) ( NB: size is 4.29 MB )

Cheers
KarlB


http://www.entity.cc/central/atomic/mush_or_80x.gif

I have been there and meet a US Surgeon in Kiev who was there volunteering to train the Ukrainian doctors in plastic surgery on how to fix the skin and other damage(s) caused by this event, it still sticks in my mind what damage I saw both in material and human terms.
As Karl said build a fusion reactor

For a view of what Chernobyl looks like now click on this link (In Russian but do not worry):
Чернобыль - 25 лет спустя - Блог ЯндексаÂ*— я.ру (http://clubs.ya.ru/company/replies.xml?item_no=36050)

You can open in google chrome and get a rough translation but to see the street view like google maps just click on the image, then follow the arrows or drag the binoculars on the map below along the blue roads.

[jx2mad]

The fallout from this thread is amazing... it's going into meltdown. Jim :o:o:o

[bee utey]

The fallout from this thread is amazing... it's going into meltdown. Jim :o:o:o

What are you on about, no-one's been banned yet....:p:p:p

[chuck]

What is interesting is that the naysayers never provide a solution.

Coal is no good.

Nuclear is no good.

Hydro is no good.

Wind turbines are no good

All saying no while using electricity, gas, petrol or diesel.

All saying we should be using public transport but where does the fuel, resources & money come from to provide them

They should be setting up a model community that works?

[ramblingboy42]

I'm not a naysayer, nor an environmentalist on this topic because I don't believe that any one form of energy production has direct advantages over another without having another derogatory impact on the environment in a different form. I think it goes back to the statement that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but changed from one form to another and it is during this change that we believe that one form of production has advantages or disadvantages or is detrimental to our environment. I'm yet to see positive proof of any energy production that is ultimately free of any environmental threat. All we are really doing is changing the dependency on our different sources of fuel which changes what we see, hear, smell or feel. We are also subject to massive propaganda programs from very very wealthy and powerful companies and businesses whose agenda is hidden from us mostly in an effort to develop their own interests.

[Eevo]

Woot?



well im not sure if its a "woot" or not, but japans solution to co2 emissions was nuclear as they didnt have any other alternatives

[Chucaro]

As an acoustics engineer who has led a number of micro wind turbine noise assessments in urban environments (including the wind turbines on a prominent building in Perth's CBD), I can tell you it is impractical to generate a meaningful amount of electricity in built up environments without considerable noise impacts.

I've also read more than my fair share of "quiet" wind turbines marketing materials, only to be told by the companies they don't actually have any noise vs wind sound power data... And that after numerous email and phonecall ping pong. I'd be happy if that wasn't the case, but that's my personal opinion based on experience to date.

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate your expertise in the field and I am not prepared to argue against it.
I only like to comment (based in articles read about them which are in use in Uruguay) that the Db levels are not over 45.
I have managed to find some manufacturer data for the Energy Ball V200 (http://home-energy.com/files/Sound%20report%20EBV200.pdf) that I do not if if of any use to you.
The report was done by Lichtveld Buis & Partners BV who are Acustic Consultants based in Holland the is date 2009 so perhaps some improvements are there from them or other manufacturers.
The maximum noise was 50db @ 10m/s
Cheers
Arthur

[Offender90]

What is interesting is that the naysayers never provide a solution.

Coal is no good.

Nuclear is no good.

Hydro is no good.

Wind turbines are no good

All saying no while using electricity, gas, petrol or diesel.

All saying we should be using public transport but where does the fuel, resources & money come from to provide them

They should be setting up a model community that works?

If that's how you want to look at it...

What I've understood from the opinions expressed on this thread so far is:

1.) Of the renewables, only hydro, and possibly solar thermal + storage can provide reliable basepower. Hydro is limited to locations which have a suitable geography (water flow and hills), which unfortunately excludes most of mainland Australia. Solar thermal + storage is relatively new by the sounds of it but perhaps one to watch / investigate.

2.) Solar photovoltaic is good for meeting localised peak power demand, but can be problematic for the power grid if an area's too saturated.

3.) Large scale wind farms are clean and can provide a good portion of power but require a backup for baseload. They also pay themselves off quickly. Australia's a big country, and perhaps it's possible to link up a number of wind farms spread over a large area, to ensure reliable baseload delivery.

4.) There's a considerable amount of support for nuclear on this forum, although there are a few people with (grave?) reservations. It's not completely risk free, and it's not completely clean. however it appears to be one of the best and cheapest basepower alternatives. Thorium reactors appear to be several orders of magnitude safer, and Australia has bucketloads of reserves.

Personally I've always thought that photovoltaic solar + potential energy storage would be a good way for individual households to be "grid-free", but that's a half baked thought at best at the moment. The potentialy energy storage would consist of two large water tanks connected via a plumbed in pump/generator assembly. Excess energy would be used to pump water from the bottom tank to the top tank, with water from the top tank used at night to drive the hydroelectric generator to meet night demand.

[wrinklearthur]

If that's how you want to look at it...

The potentialy energy storage would consist of two large water tanks connected via a plumbed in pump/generator assembly. Excess energy would be used to pump water from the bottom tank to the top tank, with water from the top tank used at night to drive the hydroelectric generator to meet night demand.

Small head would equal very large tanks, large head equals small tanks.
.

[Offender90]

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate your expertise in the field and I am not prepared to argue against it.
I only like to comment (based in articles read about them which are in use in Uruguay) that the Db levels are not over 45.
I have managed to find some manufacturer data for the Energy Ball V200 (http://home-energy.com/files/Sound%20report%20EBV200.pdf) that I do not if if of any use to you.
The report was done by Lichtveld Buis & Partners BV who are Acustic Consultants based in Holland the is date 2009 so perhaps some improvements are there from them or other manufacturers.
The maximum noise was 50db @ 10m/s
Cheers
Arthur

Thanks Arthur,

According to the report, the turbine makes 50dB(A) measured at 50m with a wind speed of 10m/s. That's for a 2.25kW turbine. Environmental noise regulations typically allow a maximum night time noise emission of 30 to 35 dB(A) in residential areas without "extraneous noise sources" such as industry, roads or commercial in the vicinity. These noise criteria apply at the nearest residential boundary.
The nearest residential boundary would need to be approximately 500m away for the wind turbine to be allowed to run at 10m/s wind speeds at night. If it only runs during the day, it would need to be ~100m away to run at 10m/s. and that's for only one 2.25kw turbine, so not overly practical. There are a lot quieter turbines available (vertical axis wind turbines)., but even so, difficult to achieve compliance with only s few small turbines.



Small head would equal very large tanks, large+ head equals small tanks.
.

only have 3 to 6m (single or double storey house) to make it practical

[Chucaro]

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate your expertise in the field and I am not prepared to argue against it.
I only like to comment (based in articles read about them which are in use in Uruguay) that the Db levels are not over 45.
I have managed to find some manufacturer data for the Energy Ball V200 (http://home-energy.com/files/Sound%20report%20EBV200.pdf) that I do not if if of any use to you.
The report was done by Lichtveld Buis & Partners BV who are Acustic Consultants based in Holland the is date 2009 so perhaps some improvements are there from them or other manufacturers.
The maximum noise was 50db @ 10m/s
Cheers
Arthur

Thank you for your informative reply. Noise levels is a problem, even some air condition units make to much noise and should not be used in suburbs were houses are at 10m from each other.
Have you an opportunity to look the saphonian turbine made by Saphon Energy? (http://www.saphonenergy.com/site/en/the-saphonian.2.html)

Cheers
Arthur

[akelly]

Do yourselves a favour and get some facts from a bloke who is an actual expert in the energy sector.

Evcricket's Energy | Looking at the interface between government, heavy industry and energy policy (http://evcricketenergy.wordpress.com/)

Cheers,

Adam

[101RRS]

Some old information (I cannot reference it at the moment) but maybe of some interest.

1. As of a couple of years ago the total amount of nuclear waste amounted to 20,000 tonnes - given the heavy weight of the stuff the volume is relatively small. Also this is the final end state of nuclear material that is of no further use and that in many cases as nuclear material is used it can then be used in other processes (sometimes enriched as well). The is not to diminish the risks involved in dealing with waste but the volumes are not as large as you would think.

2. If all the worlds power requirements were to be met by nuclear power the raw uranium in the ground would only last 50 years before it was all gone - noting the product can be reused/resurrected into different versions before it ends up being stored in the big salt mine in the sky. So the effective life of nuclear power would be much longer however like fossil fuels nuclear power based on uranium in the ground does not have an unlimited life.

3. Australia is the only place where you will find uranium ore in such concentration that that it is sustaining low level nuclear reactions - Australia has two natural nuclear reactors.

Some interesting information.

[Chucaro]

Do yourselves a favour and get some facts from a bloke who is an actual expert in the energy sector.

Evcricket's Energy | Looking at the interface between government, heavy industry and energy policy (http://evcricketenergy.wordpress.com/)

Cheers,

Adam

No Adam, I get information from many sources not only one. ;)

[Chucaro]

One among many of the reasons why I am against nuclear power it is because if it is run by a private company profit it is the number one priority and adding to that the "common fault" of humans greed (which regardless of the implications that can cause is always present) we have a recipe for disaster.
Do not forget the factor corruption as well which is present when regulatios are to tight to make possible a "reasonable" profit.
No, I will not risk the planet when negligence is always blamed for disasters and are quickly fixed by a simple sorry and assurances that it will never happen again.

[wrinklearthur]

A multi faceted lens - Fresnel lens, focusing Sunlight and heat onto a tube containing a solution similar to copier toner suspended in liquid.

Will simultaneously transfer heat and kinetic energy to be collected as electricity, heat and pneumatic force.

Ref' for lens; http://sfera.sollab.eu/downloads/Schools/Fabian_Feldhoff_Linear_Fresnel.pdf

Ref' for Stirling engine; http://www.iresen.org/energyscience/bibliotheque/cours/1361468083Chapter%2007%20dish.pdf

Ref' for Solar heat electricity generator; A solar hot water collector that makes electricity, too | Green Tech - CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-57346047-54/a-solar-hot-water-collector-that-makes-electricity-too/)
.

[JDNSW]

...........
2. If all the worlds power requirements were to be met by nuclear power the raw uranium in the ground would only last 50 years before it was all gone - ......

As with all such figures, it refers to known reserves. In Australia, for example, there has been no significant exploration directed at finding uranium for at least the last fifty years, and this would probably apply to much of the world. Exploration techniques have markedly improved in that period, so it could be expected that major discoveries would result from exploration - but nobody is going to spend money on it when existing reserves are so large. (Some major discoveries of uranium have been made while looking for other minerals - Olympic Dam is an example).

John

[wrinklearthur]

There is one other resource that hasn't mentioned here yet.

Tidal Energy.

Ref; WA approves 40 MW tidal energy plant for Kimberley (http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/wa-approves-40-mw-tidal-energy-plant-for-kimberley-20130722-2qdoz.html)

.

[wrinklearthur]

As with all such figures, it refers to known reserves. In Australia, for example, there has been no significant exploration directed at finding uranium for at least the last fifty years, and this would probably apply to much of the world. Exploration techniques have markedly improved in that period, so it could be expected that major discoveries would result from exploration - but nobody is going to spend money on it when existing reserves are so large. (Some major discoveries of uranium have been made while looking for other minerals - Olympic Dam is an example).

Ref; Uranium Deposits WA by Robin Chapple MLC

Map of sites in WA.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=101724410662104548145.0004757aca0e25c4e05e5&t=h&ll=-24.866503,123.596191&spn=23.982639,55.107422&z=5&dg=feature

[Ferret]

Some old information (I cannot reference it at the moment) but maybe of some interest.

1. As of a couple of years ago the total amount of nuclear waste amounted to 20,000 tonnes ....

2. If all the worlds power requirements were to be met by nuclear power the raw uranium in the ground would only last 50 years before it was all gone...


As with all such figures, it refers to known reserves. In Australia, for example, there has been no significant exploration directed at finding uranium for at least the last fifty years, and this would probably apply to much of the world...

The other thing to remember is technology has a habit of evolving. The current state of the art may be at the same stage of development as the 'Rocket' loco was to the evolution of the train.

Present day reactors don't utilise a great deal of their potentially available fuel. There are reactor designs proposed which burn the waste from present reactors. By some accounts there is enough stored waste to fuel these reactors to produce electricity for hundreds of years at current electricity consumption rates.

Little new large scale uranium mining may be needed and final waste production is said to be ~7x lower than current designs.

TED - Bill Gates: Travelling Wave Reactors (http://youtu.be/qwRYtiSbbVg)

[coops71]

People need to keep an open mind on all issues. The technology is there to sit along side renewables. Mining coal releases radioactivity too. Too much to explain here,but forget Uranium totally. Watch below:
LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors - YouTube

[PeterM]

Just a note for people advocating fusion reactors ...

They haven't gotten them to work at anything above a small scale experimentation level as yet. Certainly they are many years off being a commercial reality although the potential if they do get it to work is fantastic.

[Hay Ewe]

One among many of the reasons why I am against nuclear power it is because if it is run by a private company profit it is the number one priority and adding to that the "common fault" of humans greed (which regardless of the implications that can cause is always present) we have a recipe for disaster.
Do not forget the factor corruption as well which is present when regulatios are to tight to make possible a "reasonable" profit.
No, I will not risk the planet when negligence is always blamed for disasters and are quickly fixed by a simple sorry and assurances that it will never happen again.

I think that the regulations, the red tape, the green tape, the protests, the time it will take before the first 1000kg of concrete foundations will be so expensive that it will be prohibitive. I think that other countries build reactors, like in Taiwan, because they don't have the amount of red tape, green tape and protestors.

Hay Ewe

[Ferret]

...I think that other countries build reactors, like in Taiwan, because they don't have the amount of red tape, green tape and protestors.

Oh they have protesters, hundreds of thousands of them.

Focus Taiwan, March2013: 200,000 take part in Taiwan's anti-nuclear protest (http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aall/201303090038.aspx)

[Eevo]

just a thought

Fukushima meltdown: 0 deaths
earthquake that hit japan: 15,000

which one are we worrying about.

[Chucaro]

just a thought

Fukushima meltdown: 0 deaths
earthquake that hit japan: 15,000

which one are we worrying about.
Easy, the meltdown if we care about the next generations ;)
The analysis of the health impact of radioactive land contamination by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, made by Professor Chris Busby (the European Committee of Radiation Risk) based on official Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology data, has shown that over the next 50 years it would be possible to have around 400,000 additional cancer patients within a 200-kilometer radius of the plant.

And that it is without taken in consideration the thousands of fish (including tuna) already detected to be contaminated by the current leakage which they cannot stop.

[Chucaro]

just a thought

Fukushima meltdown: 0 deaths
earthquake that hit japan: 15,000

which one are we worrying about.

600 deaths were reported as a result of the evacuation

[Hay Ewe]

Happy to hear that the UK Government has grown some balls and announced yesterday that a new Nuclear reactor will be built in the UK.

Nuclear or similar power generation is the way forward. Energy has to come from some where to charge all the i-phones, i-pods and power the modern living requirements and expectations.

Hopefully the Australian government will follow suit and grow some balls as well.

Hay Ewe

[richard4u2]

if your worried about future generations and if they don't go nuclear what will they do when they run out of oil and gas which will happen in our grandkids generation ??

[loanrangie]

I like the idea of nuclear power, what has intrigued me for years is why cant we render the waste harmless. We can build the damn things and enrich uranium but we still cant de activate it, if some one can come up with a way to do it our power problems will be solved.

[mikehzz]

There isn't enough uranium to last much longer than 20 years at full power. What then?

http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

Interesting to note that we currently have around 450 nuclear reactors world wide, but would need 15,000 to replace traditional energy plants.

[jazzaD1]

says who?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Happy to hear that the UK Government has grown some balls and announced yesterday that a new Nuclear reactor will be built in the UK.

Nuclear or similar power generation is the way forward. Energy has to come from some where to charge all the i-phones, i-pods and power the modern living requirements and expectations.

Hopefully the Australian government will follow suit and grow some balls as well.

Hay EweI think a trial nuclear power plant would be good somewhere near a reasonable population (say 150K to 200K) to use the power but not so close to a major pupulation where it would affect millions if something went wrong like in Fukushima. The location should have a decent surplus of rainfall to supply water for cooling of the plant.

Cairns in Far North Queensland sounds like a good place!

See who has balls then

just a thought

Fukushima meltdown: 0 deaths
earthquake that hit japan: 15,000

which one are we worrying about.
600 deaths were reported as a result of the evacuationDo we actually know what will be the long term effects of the meltdown?

Already at least 2,400 workers have had significant exposure as to require screening for thryiod uptake and ongoing monitoring ( http://www.business-standard.com/article/international/un-says-japan-underestimated-fukushima-workers-radiation-exposure-by-20-113101400350_1.html ) and the local rice harvest (a staple food in Japan) is showing radiation readings 20% above the maximum legal limit. Workers are still being exposed ( http://www.smh.com.au/world/fukushima-plant-cleanup-workers-exposed-to-radiation-20131010-2v9rk.html

The death rate and genetic mutation effects from the meltdown are likely to take years and even generations to be counted.

.

[ramblingboy42]

Happy to hear that the UK Government has grown some balls and announced yesterday that a new Nuclear reactor will be built in the UK.

Nuclear or similar power generation is the way forward. Energy has to come from some where to charge all the i-phones, i-pods and power the modern living requirements and expectations.

Hopefully the Australian government will follow suit and grow some balls as well.

Hay Ewe

If they built one next door to you would it be ok?

[Eevo]

If they built one next door to you would it be ok?

thats a loaded question.

would you be happy with a coal, oil or natural gas power plant being built next to you?

how close is next door?
i used to live 4km from a power plant.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

thats a loaded question.

would you be happy with a coal, oil or natural gas power plant being built next to you?

how close is next door?
i used to live 4km from a power plant.And now you don't.

Any corrolation in that?

[Eevo]

And now you don't.

Any corrolation in that?


i moved for different reasons, job, partner, etc

[Hay Ewe]

I think a trial nuclear power plant would be good somewhere near a reasonable population (say 150K to 200K) to use the power but not so close to a major pupulation where it would affect millions if something went wrong like in Fukushima. The location should have a decent surplus of rainfall to supply water for cooling of the plant.

Cairns in Far North Queensland sounds like a good place!

See who has balls then

Do we actually know what will be the long term effects of the meltdown?

Already at least 2,400 workers have had significant exposure as to require screening for thryiod uptake and ongoing monitoring ( UN says Japan underestimated Fukushima workers radiation exposure by 20% | Business Standard (http://www.business-standard.com/article/international/un-says-japan-underestimated-fukushima-workers-radiation-exposure-by-20-113101400350_1.html) ) and the local rice harvest (a staple food in Japan) is showing radiation readings 20% above the maximum legal limit. Workers are still being exposed ( Fukushima plant clean-up workers exposed to radiation (http://www.smh.com.au/world/fukushima-plant-cleanup-workers-exposed-to-radiation-20131010-2v9rk.html)

The death rate and genetic mutation effects from the meltdown are likely to take years and even generations to be counted.

.

Yes
Otherwise I wouldn't be pro nuclear power. We do have lots of rain and water up this way. We have 'old' stable rock for foundations and i believe very low - if any - tectonics. Uranium is relativly close by.

A smaller power station to proved the need for the 500,000 people in the region would work well.

However, as you know I am sure, Cairns is a coastal town with a very narrow band of coastal flat land and surrounded by mountains, therefore a nuclear or equivalent station would need to be built west of the range and couldn't really be considered as being in Cairns.

Hay Ewe

[Davehoos]

original plan for nuclear plant was on QLD/NT boarder.

post WW2 populate or perish. clean cheep power was needed to provide industry and food production.

[Homestar]

If they built one next door to you would it be ok?

Yes, absolutely. Wouldn't have far to go to work...:). I used to live in the Latrobe Valley where no matter which way you looked you would see a power station. Only moved as the Gubment of the day sold everything off and pretty much made thousands redundant overnight... What did we all used to do though - they are all still running fine without us...:D

[d2dave]

As I said earlier in this thread, I would not have a problem if they built one near me, as long as I could not see or hear it. Mind you if it was going to de-value my property I would expect compensation.