Nuclear Power - debate / poll

[grumpybastard]

In the news of late has been about Australia building a Nuclear power station?

I thought it makes for an interesting topic for debate.

Once upon a time i was proud Australia didn't have nuclear power, but these days after doing a fair bit of reading on the evils of coal fired power stations im not so sure.

It appears to be a choice between evils..

Opinions?

[rangieman]

im unsure on this one but im on the edge of no
what about solar or wind

[101RRS]

I am for nuclear power - yes there have been two very notable accidents but that has been over a period of 50 years. Yes they can be dangerous but in statistical terms (and I don't have access to the stats) the over all safety record of nuclear systems is better than oil/coal based systems. Of interest is a stat that a coal powered pwer station actually releases more radioactive material into the environment than a running nuclear station - but the stat does not take into account the neclear waste management issue. Burning the coal releases the radioactive substances inbedded in the coal.

I think that the use of nuclear bombs before the development of nuclear activities for peaceful purposes has not helped the argument - neither has the Chernobyl incident - but One Mile Island does indicate that accidents can happen without the sky falling in.

I accept that there will always be emotive or other arguments for and against nuclear power but I would be happy to have one near me - as long as it is in an industrial area.

Garry

[mns488]

I'm for N-P.

A lot more efficient than coal and might stop the summer black outs.

Waste disposal does concern me though.

[HSVRangie]

Yes build it.

if we serious about cutting pollution then build it now.

Michael.

[grumpybastard]

Heres an interesting question to ask yourself -

If i had to live next to a power station would i prefer to live next to a windmill, coal or nuclear power station?

(im ignoring solar, as its not really viable yet)

[HSVRangie]

im unsure on this one but im on the edge of no
what about solar or wind
Solar and wind will never supply enough.

Im inclined to think that the energy and materialls required to build either will far out weigh the benifits.

many years ago I worked for a company that made solar lighting and it was found that the costs to produce the lighting was far greater than the gains.

Michael.

[Reads90]

im unsure on this one but im on the edge of no
what about solar or wind


It has been proven time and time again the the items used to make power from the sun/ sea/ wind. use more power to make them than they will ever produce in the their life time. So not really that green are they. Also do not procduce enough power to really make a differance still would have to run with something else, as can not be counted as a regular power sourch. Ie it is not sunny no sloar p[ower, if it not windy no wind power and if it is claim as sea then no wave power.

[Ace]

Living within only a few km's of two coal power stations i voted for the nuclear option.

Nuclear is the most efficient means of producing power, wind and solar just isnt feasible for the power demand this planet has, whilst it is a viable suplement we need more.

300grms or so of nuclear material (plutonium, uranium whatever) will produce the same amount of energy as 300000 tons of coal, thats alot les CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere.

I think to many people think that a nuclear power plant is going to be like the one on the simpsons, nuclear power plants dont effect the environment all that much, appart from the waste which has strict laws controlling its handling.

In the end everyone wont agree but coal wont be around for ever and it is the most inefficient means of producing power, we need an alternative.

[Reads90]

Should do what they do in France. If you (as a Village) have a Nuclear power station o9n your door step you get perks.
You get free power and the goverment build stuff for your village, like a big sports hall. So you go to these little villages in France and they have a sports halls Brisbane would be proud of and a massive cinima complex

Because of this there is villages queing up to have a Nuclear plant on their door step in France :)

Also if you ask me it is only a matter of time before they will have to nuclear anyway wether you like it or not.
Bit like the use of treated sewage water issue in brisbane , they are going to use it anyway wether you want it or not bacuse they have to.

[Ace]

Should do what they do in France. If you (as a Village) have a Nuclear power station o9n your door step you get perks.
You get free power and the goverment build stuff for your village, like a big sports hall. So you go to these little villages in France and they have a sports halls Brisbane would be proud of and a massive cinima complex

Because of this there is villages queing up to have a Nuclear plant on their door step in France :)

now thats an idea, Lithgow needs a big sports hall and a cinema complex. :D

[cartm58]

hey we got plenty of coal, lets burn it now and in 100 years time we still got the good old yellow cake standing by for whatever power system they say is good.

man has been polluting the planet since the first man took a crap in his cave, and unless we all become Armish we will be continuing to pollute the planet via our needs for energy sources.

[Reads90]

In the end everyone wont agree but coal wont be around for ever and it is the most inefficient means of producing power, we need an alternative.


Agreed but we need a good alternative not a massive feild full of wind mills that will produce enough power to boil a couple of kettles, if the wind is blowing that is :D :D

[Tank]

In the news of late has been about Australia building a Nuclear power station?

I thought it makes for an interesting topic for debate.

Once upon a time i was proud Australia didn't have nuclear power, but these days after doing a fair bit of reading on the evils of coal fired power stations im not so sure.

It appears to be a choice between evils..

Opinions?
I couldn't leave without some comment on the Posts on this topic, seems most of you have no idea of the impact of Chernobyl, one said, "without the sky falling in", well maybe you should speak to the families of the THOUSANDS that died, and the 100's of thousands that have been exposed, all the way to Finland and the UK and the millions that have to live with the fact that a major part of Europe has been contaminated FOREVER with Radioactive fallout.
Some say that Solar and wind power are too expensive, compared to the COST of Nuclear power stations it is a drop in the ocean, try and get past the material cost and think about this, would you like a Nuclear power station in your backyard, or better still a nuclear Waste Dump that has to be secure for a MILLION years, think of that time scale, humans haven't existed for that length of time. Coal can be made acceptable and if it isn't wind, Wave and Solar power are VIABLE alternatives, so PLEASE take the time to investigate Nuclear and the alternatives, as it is abundantly clear that little thought has gone into these posts, Regards Frank.

[Tank]

It has been proven time and time again the the items used to make power from the sun/ sea/ wind. use more power to make them than they will ever produce in the their life time. So not really that green are they. Also do not procduce enough power to really make a differance still would have to run with something else, as can not be counted as a regular power sourch. Ie it is not sunny no sloar p[ower, if it not windy no wind power and if it is claim as sea then no wave power.
Wave power works on tidal movements and if that ever stops it will mean that the earth no longer exists, probably from Nuclear explosions, Regards Frank.

[landrovermick]

i say bring it on - nuclear is the way to go - specially witht eh idck heads protesting AGINST wind mills - ever been to a suburb where they have them? i went to two towns in victoria and there are signs up everywhere - no windmills - i love them but the mutton heads in this world wont see reason until we are all dead or that sick from pollution it will be too late

Mick

[Reads90]

I couldn't leave without some comment on the Posts on this topic, seems most of you have no idea of the impact of Chernobyl, one said, "without the sky falling in", well maybe you should speak to the families of the THOUSANDS that died, and the 100's of thousands that have been exposed, all the way to Finland and the UK and the millions that have to live with the fact that a major part of Europe has been contaminated FOREVER with Radioactive fallout.
Some say that Solar and wind power are too expensive, compared to the COST of Nuclear power stations it is a drop in the ocean, try and get past the material cost and think about this, would you like a Nuclear power station in your backyard, or better still a nuclear Waste Dump that has to be secure for a MILLION years, think of that time scale, humans haven't existed for that length of time. Coal can be made acceptable and if it isn't wind, Wave and Solar power are VIABLE alternatives, so PLEASE take the time to investigate Nuclear and the alternatives, as it is abundantly clear that little thought has gone into these posts, Regards Frank.

France and the Uk have had Nuclear power sataions older than chernobyl was . It was just that the russians did not have the strict protical that ther UK and France has .
Chernobyl was a very bad probelm and still is but should not have been . That was all down to Human error and if it was not for that accident then we would not be having this argument as we would already have nuclear and have no problems with it. But it is just every time this subject comes up people bleat on about Chernobyl. Which was in Russia a country that was very very pooor and almost a 3rd world country and not the most techno contry at the time. And never mind the fact it was falling to bits politcaly

[MickG]

Solar and wind will never supply enough.

Perhaps not enough for our current consumption but surely in a country that receives so much sun and so little water, and in a very unpredictable world climate state, we should at least consider altering how we use and conserve energy and resources and try to take advantage of what we have to hand.
Other countries are doing it very sucessfully so why can't we. I tell you, when I build my next house it will be built as self sustainably as possible including water storage/saving solar/wind power generation etc and if this means I have to reduce my usege to avoid paying exorbitant amounts of hard earned cash to a power company, then this is what I will do.

I think people often forget how much we as a society "need" to consume to go about our daily lives......frightening:eek:

As for Nuclear, I am encouraged by how clean it is initially but it's the by products that are the scary part.....very much what doesn't hurt us now doesn't matter;)

Interesting debate though and funnily enough one that has been discussed for 10 or years globaly, yet there is still no real steps forward....not that I can see anyway. Still just politicians kicking the idea about every now and again.

My 10c

[drivesafe]

I have not voted for the labour party since the last time Hawk was elected.

Come the next election, even though I still hate some of the scum in the labour party, I WILL be voting Labour in the hope that enough people will do the same to stop Howard and his rich mates from building a fission nuclear power station in this country.

My reasons for not wanting this type of reactor are many but some of the reasons are as follows.

If we stopped using coal fired power stations tomorrow, it would take another 50 years before the planet would be clear of the pollution these power stations have pumped into the atmosphere.

If we stopped using fission nuclear power tomorrow, 500 generations from now will still have the legacy of monitoring and guarding the waste that we generated today, just to run our air conditioners and the likes.

Now I’m not a tightarse but to make coal fired power stations much MUCH cleaner, it will cost use all about 20 to 30% more in our power bills.

To use nuclear power will cost us a huge 300% more for electricity and the cost DOES NOT include the cost of maintaining the nuclear waste for at least the next 10,000 years and someone is most definitely going to have to pay for that.

The worlds first full sized FUSION reactor is under construction right now in France. The cost of building this reactor is being carried by 6 nations including the USA, but Australia is NOT a part of the development of this new SAFE power supply, why not?

A few more facts, the Three Mile Island accident occurred in 1973, it will be unsafe and have to be monitored, maintained and guarded at least till the year 2973.

Chernobyl, as we all know, nearly had a melt down and many thousands of lives have been lost since that accident occurred but are you aware that the reactor is on the verge of another melt down and they are not sure how to “ FIX “ it this time around.

As for the waste, every time some scum politician or businessman brings up the potential benefits of nuclear power and gets asked the cost of such power, they ALWAYS neglect to include the cost of safely storing the waste.

The USA still has not finished the worlds FIRST permanent nuclear waste storage facility and containers designed to protect the waste for 500 year ( even though they know it is dangerous for at lest 10,000 years ) had to be replaced after just 9 years.

The biggest single factor working against the use of nuclear power use is the fact that we are fed more lies than truths.

Here one more point of interest, there is a power source that is available almost everywhere on earth that could be producing electricity tomorrow but for some unknown reason ( to me ) is used very little and thats Thermal heat from the earth’s core, why not.

Cheers.

[Tank]

Living within only a few km's of two coal power stations i voted for the nuclear option.

Nuclear is the most efficient means of producing power, wind and solar just isnt feasible for the power demand this planet has, whilst it is a viable suplement we need more.

300grms or so of nuclear material (plutonium, uranium whatever) will produce the same amount of energy as 300000 tons of coal, thats alot les CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere.

I think to many people think that a nuclear power plant is going to be like the one on the simpsons, nuclear power plants dont effect the environment all that much, appart from the waste which has strict laws controlling its handling.

In the end everyone wont agree but coal wont be around for ever and it is the most inefficient means of producing power, we need an alternative.
How many 100's of thousands of tonnes of ore are mined to produce your 300grams of nuclear fuel???? and how much is it going to cost to install and service (for a million years) a Nuclear Waste dump in say, Lithgow, there is enough coal in Australia alone to supply the World's needs for thousands of years. Wood if managed properly and not mined like it is now is another alternative, Wood powered power stations and Sustainable Plantation wood supplies burnt in wood gasifier turbines are a viable alternative and add another form of income for the beleagured farming community, instead of wasting up to 12 million tonnes of wood in the worst pollution device in the world, the humble Domestic Wood Heater (DWH), 1 DWH emits more pollution in 1 x 24 hour period than a modern car does in 12 months and its emissions are 12 times more Carcinogenic than the same volume of Tobacco smoke, how many of you have a DWH, do your bit and stop polluting and poisoning yourself and your neighbours, get rid of it, a Coal fired power station per unit of heat is 10 times less polluting, that's my rave, Regards Frank.

[Frenchie]

Here one more point of interest, there is a power source that is available almost everywhere on earth that could be producing electricity tomorrow but for some unknown reason ( to me ) is used very little and thats Thermal heat from the earth’s core, why not.

Cheers.

Interestingly in a country where they are experimenting with this (injecting water and using the steam for electricity generation), can't remember where, they have discovered that they are generating significant earthquakes as well. :eek:

Edit: Switzerland -
But geothermal is not entirely risk-free. A recent effort to build such a geothermal power plant in Basel, Switzerland, came to an abrupt halt when it triggered an earthquake measuring 3.4 on the Richter scale, too small to cause damage but large enough to be felt by humans. "We generate between 3,000 and 5,000 earthquakes a year," Calpine's Gilles says. "In a typical day, we experience on average 10. I can guarantee you won't feel any of them." It remains unclear what will happen with the Basel power plant, and the problem may result from its siting; Basel was leveled by an earthquake in 1356. "You are not going to want to put a geothermal facility like this where you have a danger of lubricating a big fault,"

Full story: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=517E9954-E7F2-99DF-36C206BCA2D4E3C5

[Tank]

I have not voted for the labour party since the last time Hawk was elected.

Come the next election, even though I still hate some of the scum in the labour party, I WILL be voting Labour in the hope that enough people will do the same to stop Howard and his rich mates from building a fission nuclear power station in this country.

My reasons for not wanting this type of reactor are many but some of the reasons are as follows.

If we stopped using coal fired power stations tomorrow, it would take another 50 years before the planet would be clear of the pollution these power stations have pumped into the atmosphere.

If we stopped using fission nuclear power tomorrow, 500 generations from now will still have the legacy of monitoring and guarding the waste that we generated today, just to run our air conditioners and the likes.

Now I’m not a tightarse but to make coal fired power stations much MUCH cleaner, it will cost use all about 20 to 30% more in our power bills.

To use nuclear power will cost us a huge 300% more for electricity and the cost DOES NOT include the cost of maintaining the nuclear waste for at least the next 10,000 years and someone is most definitely going to have to pay for that.

The worlds first full sized FUSION reactor is under construction right now in France. The cost of building this reactor is being carried by 6 nations including the USA, but Australia is NOT a part of the development of this new SAFE power supply, why not?

A few more facts, the Three Mile Island accident occurred in 1973, it will be unsafe and have to be monitored, maintained and guarded at least till the year 2973.

Chernobyl, as we all know, nearly had a melt down and many thousands of lives have been lost since that accident occurred but are you aware that the reactor is on the verge of another melt down and they are not sure how to “ FIX “ it this time around.

As for the waste, every time some scum politician or businessman brings up the potential benefits of nuclear power and gets asked the cost of such power, they ALWAYS neglect to include the cost of safely storing the waste.

The USA still has not finished the worlds FIRST permanent nuclear waste storage facility and containers designed to protect the waste for 500 year ( even though they know it is dangerous for at lest 10,000 years ) had to be replaced after just 9 years.

The biggest single factor working against the use of nuclear power use is the fact that we are fed more lies than truths.

Here one more point of interest, there is a power source that is available almost everywhere on earth that could be producing electricity tomorrow but for some unknown reason ( to me ) is used very little and thats Thermal heat from the earth’s core, why not.

Cheers.
Seems most of the "For's" dont mind handing the Nuclear Waste problem on to their Future Generations, I for one dont want my future family cursing me and this generation for handing on the nuclear waste legacy for them to sort out, Clean Coal, Renewable Wood, wind, solar and Wave (tidal) power are the legacy I will have no problem handing on, Regards Frank.

[moose]

Coal can be made acceptable....

...Clean coal...

In Victoria (latrobe valley to be precise) the coal power stations back in the 70's and 80's were getting flack for pumping out clouds of emissions, so they added chemicals to the coal. The emissions are still there, just that people can't see them now. If that is acceptable then I disagree.

I live within cooee of a wind farm, only six generators, but enough to power the population of the town (around 6000 people). According to the website of the mob that runs it:
"When a good wind blows all the electricity used will be 100% green. The wind farm will produce 34,400MW/h per year. This delivers an equivalent saving of 47,830 tons in greenhouse gasses, planting 68,000 trees or taking 11,000 cars off the road."

Of course it has divided opinion, but personally I think it's ok. The greenies can't be pleased, they reckon the government should invest more in renewable power sources, but also reckon wind farms are unsightly.

Personally I am for N-P. The costs for the fuel itself is lower than coal, but maintenance and running costs are higher. Also, non-radioactive water vapour is the significant operating emission from nuclear power plants.

I would urge all those reading this thread to educate themselves, read texts such as on wikipedia (wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power)) before jumping to conclusions.

[MickG]

Seems most of the "For's" dont mind handing the Nuclear Waste problem on to their Future Generations, I for one dont want my future family cursing me and this generation for handing on the nuclear waste legacy for them to sort out, Clean Coal, Renewable Wood, wind, solar and Wave (tidal) power are the legacy I will have no problem handing on, Regards Frank.

Right on the money!!

[drivesafe]

It has been proven time and time again the the items used to make power from the sun/ sea/ wind. use more power to make them than they will ever produce in the their life time. So not really that green are they. Also do not procduce enough power to really make a differance still would have to run with something else, as can not be counted as a regular power sourch. Ie it is not sunny no sloar p[ower, if it not windy no wind power and if it is claim as sea then no wave power.

Hi Reads90, not sure where you get your facts from but 10 years ago, on average, solar panels were then, were producing, over their life span, 4 times more energy than was required to make them.

Both today's solar panels and wind generator, over their life span, will produce many, many time more energy than was required to make them.

They are NOT the answer in themselves but can be part of a viable alternative to fossil fuels and fission reactors.

The fuel of tomorrow will be hydrogen but it requires other forms of energy to produce it. Wind and solar can play a major part in the production of hydrogen in remote areas and will remove the need to both transport and use fossil fuels and this is just one example, there are many problems to over come yet and a fair bit of development required but no one is spending the big dollars that are needed to do this development work.

[Frenchie]

The fuel of tomorrow will be hydrogen but it requires other forms of energy to produce it. Wind and solar can play a major part in the production of hydrogen in remote areas and will remove the need to both transport and use fossil fuels and this is just one example, there are many problems to over come yet and a fair bit of development required but no one is spending the big dollars that are needed to do this development work.

Research is being done...

http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/articles/2004/aug/Solar_hydrogenMNE.html

Personally I would rather see big dollars being put into this sort of development than current nuclear technology.

[Outlaw]

Don't have too much of an opinion myself as not overly familiar with all the options available but this debate is a good and interesting read

[Dave110]

I somehow remember that Victoria passed legislation in the late 70's that Victoria is declared a nuclear free state, it even used to be the slogan on our number plates. some local councils passed by laws prohibiting the transport of non medical nuclear products across their boundaries

How DARE those B@ST@RDS think of putting a nuclear power station in Victoria without going to the people!

[Reads90]

How DARE those B@ST@RDS think of putting a nuclear power station in Victoria without going to the people!


What ,you seem to think that goverments work in you favour and with your welfare at heart :D :D :D :D Yeah right:D :D
What is got to do with the people , after all all they do is pay their tax, pay the MP's wages and vote them in , so nothing really:D

As a song by a chap years ago said." Goverment is not the solution to our problems Goverment is the problem"

I give you that ar*ehole on the other side of the world Tony Blair , does what he wants when ever he wants and does give a dame what the poeple think about it. Just does it anyway and says tuff, get on with it..
Hence why i am here, and not there

[JDNSW]

There seems to be a lot of incomplete knowledge on the subject! I voted usure, for reasons given below.

Safety - Nuclear power does not have a perfect safety record, but neither do any of the other power sources. However, the number of deaths due to Chernobyl have been greatly exaggerated - I seem to remember seeing a recent summary that listed it as tens rather than thousands.

Certainly, the number of deaths in the entire nuclear power industry since the year dot is far less than the annual death toll from coal mining - and a little known fact is that coal fired power stations emit more radioactivity into the atmosphere than do nuclear power stations, thanks to the ubiquity of radioactive potassium 40 in the earth's crust. Radiation is a natural part of life - humans evolved along with natural radiation, and there is no credible evidence that low levels of radiation are dangerous. While nuclear waste remains radioactive for centuries, the actual level of radiation decreases quite rapidly, as a little thought will show must be the case - high radiation levels indicate that the nucleus has a short half life. The biggest problems with nuclear are costs and scare campaigns.

There is no shortage of coal either in Australia or the world (and will not be for hundreds of years), so from the economic standpoint coal has a lot to be said for it. Carbon sequestration may be feasible, but is likely to be so expensive that nuclear looks economically attractive

Wind and solar are worth pursuing, although they cannot provide base load, and except in special circumstances are very expensive. (My house relies on solar and wind)

Gas or oil fired power stations suffer from the problem that both are in relatively short supply, gas less so. We are likely to end up with gas fired power stations because they can be built quickly and are relatively cheap, and we are likely to leave action until speed of construction becomes the overriding factor.

There is very little opportunity left for hydroelectic, and the greenies would stop it anyway.

John

[D110V8D]

What about Tidal power generation.:)

After all......."our land is girt by sea".;)

[101RRS]

I couldn't leave without some comment on the Posts on this topic, seems most of you have no idea of the impact of Chernobyl, one said, "without the sky falling in", well maybe you should speak to the families of the THOUSANDS that died, ......... so PLEASE take the time to investigate Nuclear and the alternatives, as it is abundantly clear that little thought has gone into these posts, Regards Frank.

Hi Frank,

My comment about "without the sky falling in" was in relation to Three Mile Island not Chernobyl. I agree about the devastating effects of Chernobyl but that was an exception - while individual disasters are less intense in the coal/oil industry, there are more of them and the cumulative impact on peopleand the environment is greater - more deaths, more environment damage but over a greater period of time - I don't have stats - just my thoughts.

I actually think the thought that has gone into these posts is actually very good - not a lot of emotive outbursts just thoughts of people who irrespective of their views have at least thought about it.

Cheers

Garry

[101RRS]

There has been a lot of comment about the waste and its storage. I remember reading a paper about 18 months ago that indicated that if all the worlds power requirements were to be generated by nuclear power the world uranium reserves would be used up in about 50 years - however the waste can be reprocessed and used again - the problem is its weapons grade and if it falls inot to wrong hands could be an issue.

So if processed uranium was just used once it would have to be stored for hundreds of thousands of years, however using current technology it is safe enough for reprocessing after about 30-50 years so the realistic storage period is at least workable with a reprocessing cycle of of about 30/50 years - while there are certainly storage issues related to the waste - recyling it means the storage period could be relatively shorter than what it could be.

Garry

[Disco300Tdi]

Nuclear

[Lucy]

For what it will cost to provide enough nuclear power plants to power Australia, we could have enough solar panels on every roof of every home to do exactly the same thing!

If a solar panel breaks, big deal, if a nuclear plant breaks?

And it will take 20yrs to build the nuclear plants, we could have solar done in 5!

[dobbo]

For what it will cost to provide enough nuclear power plants to power Australia, we could have enough solar panels on every roof of every home to do exactly the same thing!

If a solar panel breaks, big deal, if a nuclear plant breaks?

And it will take 20yrs to build the nuclear plants, we could have solar done in 5!


I tend to agree, but the cost of maintaining and replacing photovoltaic panels once they are to old to be feasible may only defer todays problems for the next 15 - 25years, then you have the batteries, controllers, low voltage wiring , low voltage appliances.
Out of interest I wonder how much power the average plasma TV uses in a year. Cause we all must have one. It's the latest fad.

[dobbo]

whether or not we went Nuclear I'd imagine it would have very little effect on the coal mining industry in Australia, the majority of the coal goes to export, we only get the crap for power.

Yes nuclear has waste products, aren't these imported and buried in the desert somewhere anyway? There is no saying our decendants couldn't find a use for it, just like we have with coal, oil, gold etc........

(Perhaps to power their own personal TARDIS or something)

[nobbydoldrums]

Wood if managed properly and not mined like it is now is another alternative, Wood powered power stations and Sustainable Plantation wood supplies burnt in wood gasifier turbines are a viable alternative and add another form of income for the beleaguered farming community

Frank, have a read of the article I linked to under the biofuels forum on here. Even in a gasifier, wood pulp has terrible carbon economics.

Wood uses a hell of a lot of energy in reducing it to a form suitable for burning or reacting. The currently utilized gasifiers like Shell also usually need a pulverized low moisture feed and are far more suited to lignite. Biowaste and wood can be used, it just requires a lot of it's own energy in breaking it into pieces and drying it.

If we take greenhouse effect to be "serious business", then wood pulp and other biofuels are probably the worst contenders in terms of carbon economics, making fossil fuels are a lot more attractive option.

If you're looking at the sustainability picture and forgetting about carbon, then obviously biofuels are the attractive option.

On another note, it seems rather amusing that after decades of ****-farting around, IPCC suddenly issues a report and everyone (including our beloved prime minister) become instant converts to the new religion of climate change.

In all that time, nothing has changed; the same old data sources have been used and all new findings are based on atmospheric computer models (many argue which are extreme simplifications and make serious assumptions). Suddenly the head of the IARC Syun-Ichi Akasofu resigns (a dissident of the climate change movement and a man with access to serious climate data).

Probably a bit much of a rant for here but it seems uncanny that this stuff is such a massive focus now, particularly when china is building a new pulverized coal fired power station every 5 days. You'd almost think that someone wants Aus of of the coal game?

Oh, and don't think that Flannery's suggestion of stopping Aus exports of coal would affect anyone but us. There are many players who would love to grab that market share off Aus right now.

[vnx205]

Nuclear power is not the answer.
1. Economic cost.
Claims about the economic cost compared with other energy sources are generally based on existing reactors. Because new ones are so expensive to construct, advocates of nuclear power omit capital costs. New Scientist estimated that if construction costs were included, the price of nuclear energy in the US would rise from 5 cents per kilowatt hour to 14 cents/kwh.
Subsidies hide the true cost of nuclear power. In the first 15 years of its development the nuclear industry received 30 times as much financial support as wind energy research. The same amount of support for wind energy would have produced 5 times as many jobs and 2.3 times as much energy.
2. Energy cost.
Energy is needed to build reactors, mine and mill ore, enrich uranium, fabricate fuel elements, decommission and dismantle reactors, transport and store waste. In order for nuclear power to make a significant contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases we would need to replace all existing reactors and build 2-3000 next generation reactors of 1000 megawatt capacity over the next fifty years at a rate of one a week. The known reserves of high grade uranium ore (3.5 million tonnes) would supply those reactors for less than a decade. Use of low grade ore below 0.01% would consume more energy than it produced. Reprocessing is very expensive and dangerous.

So nuclear power is not economical, is not "green" and is not sustainable

[grumpybastard]

Interesting comments,

Not so long ago work won the contract to build 3x of the windmills down Wonthaggi way and having a chat to a couple of the guys, I was told that they would break even after 4 years, which is a damn good return on investment if that is true?!?!

I've also heard in some countries in Europe that you can buy into the construction of windmills, a bit like shares in a company and the share holders take the profits.

[drivesafe]

Hi Frank,

My comment about "without the sky falling in" was in relation to Three Mile Island not Chernobyl. I agree about the devastating effects of Chernobyl but that was an exception - while individual disasters are less intense in the coal/oil industry, there are more of them and the cumulative impact on peopleand the environment is greater - more deaths, more environment damage but over a greater period of time - I don't have stats - just my thoughts.

I actually think the thought that has gone into these posts is actually very good - not a lot of emotive outbursts just thoughts of people who irrespective of their views have at least thought about it.

Cheers

Garry

Hi garrycol, Chernobyl was obviously the worst accident to date but Three Mile Island was not an exception but was actually the last straw for most Americans and there has not been one new nuclear power station commissioned in the USA since Three Mile Island. That’s nearly 35 years and even though they have shortages at times, the yanks have managed to produce enough power to meet there needs and as we have far more coal than any other country, our needs and the needs of our customers can be met by a fuel source that, once a safe alternative is developed, will stop having an effect on the environment.

Nuclear on the other hand is already polluting the planet in a number of places.

Again, Chernobyl is the worst but is should stand as a warning to ALL, unlike a accident at a coal mine or coal power station, you don’t get a second chance with a nuclear accident and contrary to the popular belief that there have only been a few nuclear accidents or near accidents, there have been some rippers.

In the USA, there was a near miss in the 60s in the Tennessee Valley when a clown with a lit candle set fire to the insulation on wiring in a tunnel leading from a control room the the containment building at one of the nuclear power stations.

Lucky for all concerned, including the hundreds of thousands of people living near the reactor, that the local fire chief, on arriving at the fire scene, quickly realised that the fire in control room was unfortunate but if they didn’t want to have the whole valley made uninhabitable all the water had to be feed into the containment building, even though it was not on fire.

He was the only one that knew the pile was in an uncontrolled melt down and his actions were the only thing that saved the place.

In England, at one of the reactors, there was an accidental release of radioactively contaminated air from the containment building and all milk production in the surrounding counties had to be abandoned and the surrounding population is still being monitored, 40 years after the accident.

I don’t know of any coal mines that have caused these sorts of incidents.

And for the records, the Russian government shows the official death toll from Chernobyl as 86 but more than 250,000 people have died from cancers and other radio active contamination effects but they are just not officially accredited to the accident.

Further to the problems the Chernobyl accident has created and again should be a lesson to all. Hundreds of thousands of square miles of land can neither be inhabited or used for at least 1,000 years and the Russians are now experimenting with different types of crops to see what can be grown there, that will not have any on going contamination problems once the crops are harvested and so far there aren’t any.

Cheers

[JDNSW]

A few more comments:-

Reserves - and this applies to both uranium and coal as well as other minerals such as oil or gas.

The reserve of a mineral is the amount that has been proved to exist using accepted standards and methods of proof. In many cases (e.g. ASX reports) the word "reserve" has specific legal meaning. Since proving the size of reserves is expensive, nobody is going to voluntarily prove reserves further ahead than is needed to get a supply contract or justify the expenditure to start a mine, although sometimes the amount proved turns out to be more than expected. Consequently, reserves rarely extend more than a decade or two into the future, and provide no real indication of how much of the substance is actually there.
In the case of coal, although not reserves, the worldwide quantities known to exist are enormous. A couple of local examples - In the Sydney Basin, several coal seams totalling tens of metres in thickness are known to exist over the entire area bounded by the coast and a line from North of Newcastle west to near Mudgee and then to Lithgow and to Wollongong. In general mining has only taken place along the edge of this, although there used to be a mine at Balmain in Sydney. The majority of Bass Strait is underlain by multiple coal seams with thicknesses in places in excess of 100m. Some of this would be expensive to mine, but to suggest any shortage is ludicrous. The same sort of situation exists in many places round the world. (These data are well established as a byproduct of oil and gas exploration)
As far as uranium reserves go, take the case of Australia - with a two mine policy, who in their right mind would spend money looking for it? Despite this, there are a number of other ore bodies so obvious that the owners want to develop them! So how many other bodies could be found if we really looked?

Wave power:- The problem with wave power is that so far building systems that can live in the open ocean exposed to salt water and severe weather have the problem that they are very expensive, both in money and energy, and are high maintenance - and have a relatively short life.

Hot rock:- This looks promising, but is relatively expensive to develop and seems to be relatively high maintenance.

Solar Voltaic:- Although on the face of it, this is impossibly expensive, I think that there is a real opening for it in the form of home installations supplying power back into the grid. The reason I think it will work, is that there are a lot of people prepared to put their money where their thoughts are with renewable energy, and it has the advantage that money is spent in small amounts, and the power uses the existing grid - and because a lot of the power is generated close to where it is used, it saves on distribution costs.

John

[Tank]

Frank, have a read of the article I linked to under the biofuels forum on here. Even in a gasifier, wood pulp has terrible carbon economics.

Wood uses a hell of a lot of energy in reducing it to a form suitable for burning or reacting. The currently utilized gasifiers like Shell also usually need a pulverized low moisture feed and are far more suited to lignite. Biowaste and wood can be used, it just requires a lot of it's own energy in breaking it into pieces and drying it.

If we take greenhouse effect to be "serious business", then wood pulp and other biofuels are probably the worst contenders in terms of carbon economics, making fossil fuels are a lot more attractive option.

If you're looking at the sustainability picture and forgetting about carbon, then obviously biofuels are the attractive option.

On another note, it seems rather amusing that after decades of ****-farting around, IPCC suddenly issues a report and everyone (including our beloved prime minister) become instant converts to the new religion of climate change.

In all that time, nothing has changed; the same old data sources have been used and all new findings are based on atmospheric computer models (many argue which are extreme simplifications and make serious assumptions). Suddenly the head of the IARC Syun-Ichi Akasofu resigns (a dissident of the climate change movement and a man with access to serious climate data).

Probably a bit much of a rant for here but it seems uncanny that this stuff is such a massive focus now, particularly when china is building a new pulverized coal fired power station every 5 days. You'd almost think that someone wants Aus of of the coal game?

Oh, and don't think that Flannery's suggestion of stopping Aus exports of coal would affect anyone but us. There are many players who would love to grab that market share off Aus right now.
Yes, there is a lot of Kafuffel about using wood in small regional based power stations using sustainable wood supplies, but that word sustainable is very misused, the Aust. Greenhouse Office (AGO) says that burning wood in power stations is Greenhouse Gas (GG) neutral. Trouble is the AGO only measures Carbon Dioxide, why, because they have a world wide accepted PROTOCOL for it's measurement. AGO is not concerned with other GG's like Methane (23 times more potent GG than CO2), Formaldahyde, Nitrous oxides, Carbon Monoxide and a whole heap of other nasties including Dioxins and BAP's (one of the cancer causing elements found in Tobacco smoke) all because they DONT have a PROTOCOL for measuring the *****, so it doesn't exist, This is from the Federal Government that is telling us to get into bed with their bosses and light up a safe Nuclear Plant, remeber when cigarettes where good for you.
Australia could cut it's GG by 1/3 overnight by banning Domestic Wood Heaters, but Howard and his Bosses want Nuclear because they (Howards Bosses) are going to make Squillions of $, it's not about cleaning the AIR we all breathe, its about MONEY, Regards Frank.

[JDNSW]

........
Australia could cut it's GG by 1/3 overnight by banning Domestic Wood Heaters, .....

I very much doubt that - wood heating represents an insignificant part of the total energy consumption in Australia (although not some other countries) - and regardless of how you measure the greenhouse contribution of them it is not going to be very much. (And my view is that they are close to greenhouse neutral depending on what you burn) In terms of local air pollution, they are in some places a major contributor, but any replacement of them, while shifting the pollution elsewhere, is likely to contribute almost as much or more greenhouse gases.

The reason they are unlikely to be banned is that too many voters have them! Nothing to do with nuclear power, although the power industry dislikes them for obvious reasons.

[nobbydoldrums]

but Howard and his Bosses want Nuclear because they (Howards Bosses) are going to make Squillions of $, it's not about cleaning the AIR we all breathe, its about MONEY, Regards Frank.

Dunno about anyone making squillions off it. The CAPEX, operating costs and project lag time for nuclear plants are horrendous. I'd don't know the numbers, but I'd have thought building one would require substantial govt assistance to make it worthwhile. A nuclear industry also adds a fair bit in value insofar as technological expertise and support industries.

Most of "them" - i.e. vested interests currently raping Aus for all it's worth are generally not that forward thinking or patient. There are better returns to be made in petrochem, minerals and even wind power!

[JDNSW]

Dunno about anyone making squillions off it. ......
Most of "them" - i.e. vested interests currently raping Aus for all it's worth are generally not that forward thinking or patient. There are better returns to be made in petrochem, minerals and even wind power!

You're right in general - the costs make any nuclear power in Australia unlikely unless the cost of coal fired power is raised to at least double by, for example, requiring carbon sequestration or carbon tax.

"them" to an increasing extent, is YOU - or to be more precise, your super fund. A larger and larger proportion of Australia's (and the world's) capital is in managed funds of one kind or another, and their managers look only to the quarterly balance sheet, because this is what their annual bonus depends on. And you encourage them by choosing the super fund with the best return.

While interest rates remain high (and the current rates are still high by both historic and international standards) you can expect managers, and especially fund managers, to have little interest in any forward thinking beyond the current quarter.

John

[Tank]

I very much doubt that - wood heating represents an insignificant part of the total energy consumption in Australia (although not some other countries) - and regardless of how you measure the greenhouse contribution of them it is not going to be very much. (And my view is that they are close to greenhouse neutral depending on what you burn) In terms of local air pollution, they are in some places a major contributor, but any replacement of them, while shifting the pollution elsewhere, is likely to contribute almost as much or more greenhouse gases.

The reason they are unlikely to be banned is that too many voters have them! Nothing to do with nuclear power, although the power industry dislikes them for obvious reasons.
John, why would you doubt that, what do you base that statement that DWH pollution would be insignificant. 1 DWH operated as in Lab tests for AS4013 emissions compliance tests emits 5grams of Particulate Matter (PM) (with the great majority being PM2.5 which cannot be blocked by the bodies defence system and passes straight to the blood system, WHO says there is NO SAFE LEVEL of exposure to woodsmoke) per kg of wood burnt. 1/2 of Sydney and Melbourne's air pollution measured over a whole year (considering DWH only run for about 5 months or so/ year) is directly attributal to emissions from DWH, during the winter months it is as high as 75%. Launceston and Canberra are the 2 most air polluted cities in Australia as a direct result of DWH, these aren't my figures these are published figures available to anyone that cares to look, stats from CSIRO DAR, EPA NSW and Vic, NHMRC, NEPC, NPI, every year 4000 Australians die as a direct result of exposure to Particulate Pollution, I certainly wouldn't say this was insignificant and the major contributor is the DWH, NSW DoH, EPA NSW. Sydney and Melbourne have only about 13 to 15% of households with DWH, but in country towns DWH ownership is 60%+ and the problem is more than 4 times worse than in the city. John can you name any other household appliance that state governments issue Dont Use warnings and have Buy-Back schemes for and more and more councils are banning new installations. Now a DWH operated ouside Lab tests in situ (home) because of imprpoer operation, i.e. lighting up at the first sign of cool weather and keeping it alight for months on end, means that DWH are allowed to smoulder overnight and while the owner is at work, so the average DWH is on Smoulder setting for up 16 hours a day, at this setting a single DWH will emit more than 100 times the AS4013 limit. Or put another way, more pollution in one 24 hour period than the entire life time emission from a modern ULP car. A modern coal power station per Unit of Heat produced is 10 times cleaner than a DWH operating within the AS4013 limits, then multiply that by 100 for the average DWH in a home and you can see Electricity is up to 1000 times cleaner. and dont kid yourself that wood is a renewable resource, State Forests cant keep up with the 3 million tonnes/year from Woodchipping, how are they going to keep up with the 6 million tonnes/year legally harvested and around another 6 million tonnes/year taken illegally, teas ready got to go, Regards Frank.

[George130]

I voted Yes to Nuclear.
We also voted Yes to a wind farm near us but don't know how the overall vote went.
I see it as Australia should have solar hot water and Solar Voltaic on as many buildings as possible. I know this won't supply all the power but it would help and also increase the grid reliability.

Wind and wave power can also help with needs of the nation. We could then use things like gas power stations for peak generation and coal as the base load.

If enough Solar was installed then it would get cheaper and the research to improve it would also increase so as they need replacing they could be upgraded.

[Tank]

Dunno about anyone making squillions off it. The CAPEX, operating costs and project lag time for nuclear plants are horrendous. I'd don't know the numbers, but I'd have thought building one would require substantial govt assistance to make it worthwhile. A nuclear industry also adds a fair bit in value insofar as technological expertise and support industries.

Most of "them" - i.e. vested interests currently raping Aus for all it's worth are generally not that forward thinking or patient. There are better returns to be made in petrochem, minerals and even wind power!
Well only last week a few of johnies buddies started a new Nuclear Corp., I dont imagine they will be doing this because they wish to clean up the environment, Regards Frank

[DougLD]

Hi All
Interesting poll I voted unsure if it can be built with a great safety factor and we find away to store the waste with absolute safety I could Vote Yes
Regards
Doug

[rangieman]

Solar and wind will never supply enough.

Im inclined to think that the energy and materialls required to build either will far out weigh the benifits.

many years ago I worked for a company that made solar lighting and it was found that the costs to produce the lighting was far greater than the gains.

Michael.
yes many years ago we had dinosaurs:p

times have changed i dont like the waste of nuclear and threat from those that can obtain it:eek:

[vnx205]

Unless I have missed something, the arguments in favour of nuclear power are:
1. It is cheap -no it isn't.
2. It is clean -no it isn't.
3. It will solve global warming - no it won't.
4. It is a quick fix -no it isn't.
5. It is a long term solution -no it isn't.
6. It is safe - no it isn't.

Doesn't seem to have a lot going for it does it?

[Defender200Tdi]

A few more comments:-


Solar Voltaic:- Although on the face of it, this is impossibly expensive, I think that there is a real opening for it in the form of home installations supplying power back into the grid. The reason I think it will work, is that there are a lot of people prepared to put their money where their thoughts are with renewable energy, and it has the advantage that money is spent in small amounts, and the power uses the existing grid - and because a lot of the power is generated close to where it is used, it saves on distribution costs.

John

This is an interesting point for me at the moment as I'm in the process of having a new home designed, for construction later in the year. My intention with this home was initially to incorporate solar power, solar hot water and a domestic bore for some of the water. After doing some costings based on our current energy usage for electricity and gas, my calculations show that the most economic solar power solution will take us a little over 26 years to break even (assuming an annual 5% increase in electricity), and the solar hot water will take 10 years to break even (after Fed & State Govt rebates and incentives). Coincidently the expected life of the solar hot water unit is...yes, 10 years. Neither are therefore viable alternatives economically at this stage, and try as I might, I can find no argument in favour of either except for the green one.

On the other hand, the domestic bore is a shoein economically and survives my scutiny of our initial plans.


Paul:)

[Tank]

Unless I have missed something, the arguments in favour of nuclear power are:
1. It is cheap -no it isn't.
2. It is clean -no it isn't.
3. It will solve global warming - no it won't.
4. It is a quick fix -no it isn't.
5. It is a long term solution -no it isn't.
6. It is safe - no it isn't.

Doesn't seem to have a lot going for it does it?
Doesn't seem to have a lot going for it does it?
__________________


No, it doesn't, Regards Frank.

[dmdigital]

Unless I have missed something, the arguments in favour of nuclear power are:
1. It is cheap -no it isn't.
2. It is clean -no it isn't.
3. It will solve global warming - no it won't.
4. It is a quick fix -no it isn't.
5. It is a long term solution -no it isn't.
6. It is safe - no it isn't.

Doesn't seem to have a lot going for it does it?

I disagree on point 5. It is a long term solution. How can anything with that kind of a half life on its by-products be considered short term. It's going to be around for a very long time!

[moose]

Unless I have missed something, the arguments in favour of nuclear power are:
1. It is cheap -no it isn't.
2. It is clean -no it isn't.
3. It will solve global warming - no it won't.
4. It is a quick fix -no it isn't.
5. It is a long term solution -no it isn't.
6. It is safe - no it isn't.

Doesn't seem to have a lot going for it does it?

You don't state what your answer would be.

[vnx205]

I disagree on point 5. It is a long term solution. How can anything with that kind of a half life on its by-products be considered short term. It's going to be around for a very long time!
Doesn't that make it a long term problem rather than a long term solution?

[shorty943]

Unless I have missed something, the arguments in favour of nuclear power are:
1. It is cheap -no it isn't.
2. It is clean -no it isn't.
3. It will solve global warming - no it won't.
4. It is a quick fix -no it isn't.
5. It is a long term solution -no it isn't.
6. It is safe - no it isn't.

Doesn't seem to have a lot going for it does it?

Sorry vnx, must disagree, on some points at least.

1, is it cheap? in the short term, no, it is expensive to setup. In the long term yes.
2, is it clean? most certainly yes, if properly maintained, and run not by bloody bean counters, but by propperly educated, far less emotive people.
3, will it solve global warming? one hell of a lot less CO2 in the atmosphere certainly can't hurt.
4, is it a quick fix? Okay, I'll give you a half a point there. They do take some time to propperly build and secure, from an engineering point of view, that is.
The safety of the public, is directly related to the construction and the operation of ANY heavy industry. And power generation, is that if anything is.
5, is it long term? what the? you bet your bippy it is sonny.
6, see 2.

It was my specialty in the Navy, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence. I have had to actually study Nuclear Power and weaponry, at some depth for your safety's sake. Garrycol, was once one of my young officer trainees, we are rather less emotive on the subject, I beleive, because of our education in the field.

We should have started building NP stations 10 or 15 years ago.

Okay, by the end of the post, it seems like I may disagree on almost all points. I am allowed to.

Just a thought, I am going to cheat a bit here, because I actually have open power station qualifications, so I could be one up on some here.
Can anybody describe how a nuclear power station actually operates? (garrycol - no cheating) I am not trying to show off. I want to know how much the average person understands about the way it is done.

Shorty.

[vnx205]

You don't state what your answer would be.
Efficient use of energy would be a start.
According to a study of energy consumption in OECD countries published in 2001, Europeans use 50% less energy per head than Americans to maintain the same standard of living. I suspect that Australia leans more towards the US than Europe in its pattern of energy consumption. It seems that lights in the hallways of European hotels are automatically turned off after 3 minutes. Does that happen in the majority of Australian hotels?
Homes can be made more energy efficient without adding to the cost or lowering living standards.
About 20 years ago the CSIRO (I think) took a standard Jennings home, oriented it the right way on the block, slightly changed the width of the eaves and the size of some of the windows and added insulation. Then with a little bit of care about when they opened and closed doors and windows, especially on hot days, over a 12 month period were able to reduce the energy consumption to about 25% compared to a number of the same Jennings home which had not been modified.
Most energy efficiency measures cost less than the cost of electricity generation and distribution. This will be even more true if we move to some of the slightly dearer, but cleaner energy sources.
That isn't the whole answer, but it could make an enormous contribution.

[shorty943]

From memory Allan, that study also showed a shaded roof can reduce the ineer ( edit) inner roof space temperature in summer by as much as 30c.

If you want to see who leaves the lights on at night, go to the NASA website and search for a photograph called "Earthlights". I use it as my desktop background, to remind me of what a crock the Kuoto Protocol is.

Shorty.

[LandyAndy]

Hi Guys
Yes go for it.
Its actually starting to be proven much better for the world than oil/coal.
I watched a doco on SBS a month or 2 ago that really opened my eyes.
It was based on Chernobyl.
OK the poor unfortunates with the disaster in their backyards suffered horrific consequences.
BUT they found out Xkms out(sorry didnt store it in the memory banks) that the cancer rate was way down on the normal rate.The scientists were set aside,the "accepted" model for radiation/cancer was not working,infact it was opposite.
They then turned their research to the good old USofA.
They got a map of the country imposed the cancer rates for the country upon it.Now the good old USofA actually has very high natural background radiation in quite an area.The big suprise was the cancer rates were WAY down where the natural radiation was high,agreeing with the Chernobyl results.
I think nuclear is the way to go,we are lucky we can locate plants in the "never never" to help prevent major stuff ups.
I also belive if you are using nuclear you are responsible for the waste.It needs to be kept away from terrorists.You cant safely store the waste in most parts of the world,yes Australia has the open areas but it is still a big risk.
Perhaps the answer is to load the waste into rockets and fire them at the sun,they will burn up and be destroyed.We recieve radiation big time from the sun anyhow,and the amount sent would be small in comparison.
We could send it in rockets the other direction,much like sending all your rubbish to the dump.BUT greater beings out there could find it and send it back.
Go nuclear,WITH GREAT CAUTION,the french,poms,yanks and ruskis are all at it and have been for a long time,the disasters are remarkably low.
It would do big$$$$ for our economy,WA has the biggest uranium deposits in the world!!!!
The Chinese are after it big time,even the ggod old USofA would want their share.
If there was a 100% gauranteed buyback of waste that was included in the sale,Aussie could send the waste to the sun,not real comfortable with burying the waste in the "never never"
Andrew

[abaddonxi]

From memory Allan, that study also showed a shaded roof can reduce the ineer ( edit) inner roof space temperature in summer by as much as 30c.

If you want to see who leaves the lights on at night, go to the NASA website and search for a photograph called "Earthlights". I use it as my desktop background, to remind me of what a crock the Kuoto Protocol is.

Shorty.

Link to earthlights pic.

http://www.cojoweb.com/earthlights.html

Cheers
Simon

[shorty943]

Lucas Heights, Australia's only reactor, one of the very first fully operational nuclear reactors in the world. One of the many reactors in the world to not give problems, is strictly medicinal. Yes boys and girls, with out Lucas Heights, there would be no anti cancer radiotherapy drugs available to medicine. Make you think?

Shorty.

[Tank]

Hi Guys
Yes go for it.
Its actually starting to be proven much better for the world than oil/coal.
I watched a doco on SBS a month or 2 ago that really opened my eyes.
It was based on Chernobyl.
OK the poor unfortunates with the disaster in their backyards suffered horrific consequences.
BUT they found out Xkms out(sorry didnt store it in the memory banks) that the cancer rate was way down on the normal rate.The scientists were set aside,the "accepted" model for radiation/cancer was not working,infact it was opposite.
They then turned their research to the good old USofA.
They got a map of the country imposed the cancer rates for the country upon it.Now the good old USofA actually has very high natural background radiation in quite an area.The big suprise was the cancer rates were WAY down where the natural radiation was high,agreeing with the Chernobyl results.
I think nuclear is the way to go,we are lucky we can locate plants in the "never never" to help prevent major stuff ups.
I also belive if you are using nuclear you are responsible for the waste.It needs to be kept away from terrorists.You cant safely store the waste in most parts of the world,yes Australia has the open areas but it is still a big risk.
Perhaps the answer is to load the waste into rockets and fire them at the sun,they will burn up and be destroyed.We recieve radiation big time from the sun anyhow,and the amount sent would be small in comparison.
We could send it in rockets the other direction,much like sending all your rubbish to the dump.BUT greater beings out there could find it and send it back.
Go nuclear,WITH GREAT CAUTION,the french,poms,yanks and ruskis are all at it and have been for a long time,the disasters are remarkably low.
It would do big$$$$ for our economy,WA has the biggest uranium deposits in the world!!!!
The Chinese are after it big time,even the ggod old USofA would want their share.
If there was a 100% gauranteed buyback of waste that was included in the sale,Aussie could send the waste to the sun,not real comfortable with burying the waste in the "never never"
Andrew
Brilliant, what happens if one of your waste rockets blows up just after launch, a couple of tonnes of nuclear waste floating around the world for all to enjoy, Regards Frank.

[Tank]

Lucas Heights, Australia's only reactor, one of the very first fully operational nuclear reactors in the world. One of the many reactors in the world to not give problems, is strictly medicinal. Yes boys and girls, with out Lucas Heights, there would be no anti cancer radiotherapy drugs available to medicine. Make you think?

Shorty.
Yes it makes me think, I should have had the prostate operation instead of the bloody radiotherapy, I wouldn't have cancer now or the damage from the radiation, Regards Frank.

[vnx205]

1, is it cheap? in the short term, no, it is expensive to setup. In the long term yes.
2, is it clean? most certainly yes, if properly maintained, and run not by bloody bean counters, but by propperly educated, far less emotive people.
3, will it solve global warming? one hell of a lot less CO2 in the atmosphere certainly can't hurt.
4, is it a quick fix? Okay, I'll give you a half a point there. They do take some time to propperly build and secure, from an engineering point of view, that is.
The safety of the public, is directly related to the construction and the operation of ANY heavy industry. And power generation, is that if anything is.
5, is it long term? what the? you bet your bippy it is sonny.
6, see 2.

It was my specialty in the Navy, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence. I have had to actually study Nuclear Power and weaponry, at some depth for your safety's sake. Garrycol, was once one of my young officer trainees, we are rather less emotive on the subject, I beleive, because of our education in the field.

We should have started building NP stations 10 or 15 years ago.

Okay, by the end of the post, it seems like I may disagree on almost all points. I am allowed to.

Just a thought, I am going to cheat a bit here, because I actually have open power station qualifications, so I could be one up on some here.
Can anybody describe how a nuclear power station actually operates? (garrycol - no cheating) I am not trying to show off. I want to know how much the average person understands about the way it is done.

Shorty.

Point no.2 Clean? Isn't it true that "venting" is a standard practice at nuclear reactors involving the release of radioactive gases to the atmosphere?
Point no. 3 CO2 reduction? Nuclear powerstations will not remove a hell of a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere.
What about the energy required to build the reactor and mine, mill and process the uranium? That contributes to greenhouse gases. The claims about removing CO2 ignore the contribution of these stages in the process.
Point no. 6. How can it be long term if the reserves of high grade ore are so limited? When we move to lower grade ore, the CO2 emitted in the mining and milling becomes even greater.
How do nuclear reactors work? Are you asking about Generation I, Light Water Generation II (which make up the majority of existing reactors and do you mean the Pressurised Water Reactors or the Boiling Water Reactors) or Heavy Water Generation II Reactors, or Generation III such as the AP-1000 PWR or III+ Reactors or Generation IV. They all have their problems including the problem with Gen IV relying on fuel and plant performance figures that have not been tested let alone proven to be achievable and requiring metals to resist corrosion way beyond anything that has been achieved so far.

[novice42]

Nuclear is for DICKHEADS

[dobbo]

Nuclear is for DICKHEADS


interesting , would you like to elaberate?

[drivesafe]

I don’t know how anybody can think nuclear power is going to be cheap.

Ever Howard, in the last month or so, stated that nuclear power is going to be 3 times the cost of current power and he also stated that he was prepared to artificially inflate the cost of coal powered energy to make nuclear power more attractive.

How does this make nuclear power cheaper.

Thick carefully people, we are all being played for suckers just so Howard’s mates can line their pockets.

[drivesafe]

Nuclear is for DICKHEADS

I wouldn’t say that but it is only for the ill-informed.

[dobbo]

this thread could quite easily get ugly

What options have we got?

Water (greenies kick up a stink about dams)

Coal (Greenies kick up a stink about mines)

Nuclear (well as I've been informed recently, it's for dickheads)

Wind (Greenies kick up a stink about windfarms)

Solar (cost versus production of electricity makes it a luxury item, besides with my complextion I have to slip, slop and slap)

I suppose we all could burn our own methane to produce electricity, remember though "Master Blaster runs Bartertown"

[LandyAndy]

Hi Tank
Yes Good point.
BUT how much is non nuclear costing us?????
Maybe send little amounts off at a time to prevent DISASTERS.
Johnny Howard and his mates havent peed in my pockets but I have watched enough docos to form a belief.
Coal and oil ARE DEFINATELY KILLING THE PLANET,have a look at Greenpeace and such Environmentaly friendly parties.They are turning tides.
Andrew

[D110V8D]

If you really want to make a difference to "our" environment..........


TOP YOURSELF!

We're a cancer on the earth. :wasntme:


This is not directed at any one person....but is directed at all persons.


Yes I am a greenie..........sort of.;)

[dobbo]

Nuclear is for DICKHEADS


Yes, thanks to nuclear power I can now please two women at the same time;)

[MT]

We have a Federal Govt that:

1. Failed to answer the phone or read the briefings to know that they were wrong about children overboard.

2. Missed, for years, AWB corruption.

3. Invaded Iraq because Saddam was a) harbouring Al Qaeada and b) building nukes.

4. promised that no one would be worse off under 'work choices'

5. lied about interest rates.

6. As recently as last year had senior ministers questioning the science of global warming (that same science that is now the compelling argument to go nuclear all of a sudden).

We have state governments where:

1. Ministers are bought off and influenced by Brian Burke.
2. An incompetent doctor kills people in Bundaberg over an extended period - and then is allowed to leave the country.
3. They cannot make the trains run on time (how hard can it be - the old saying goes that even Mussolini could make the trains run on time in Itay 70 years ago!)

And some Australians apparently want to let these people regulate and monitor nuclear fuelled power plants? (which, if the news about Walker, Morgan et al is correct, will be run by their close mates and party financial supporters).

Good plan.:eek:

[moose]

Copied directly from wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_controversy)

"Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power"

"Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels (pollution from fossil fuels is blamed for many deaths each year in the U.S. alone). It also does not directly produce carbon dioxide, which has led some environmentalists to advocate increased reliance on nuclear energy as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

"Even at three mile island, the most severe civilian nuclear accident in the non-Soviet world, the reactor vessel and containment building were never breached, even though it had suffered a core meltdown, so that very little radiation (well below natural background radiation levels) was released into the environment"

There are many other facts in there that dispel the myths surrounding nuclear energy. As I said before, go have a read

If the basis of the arguement has turned to "nuclear is more expensive", tough. Something has to be done.

On a personal note, thanks grumybastard for raising this issue, it has been most educational.

[dobbo]

told you all it's gettin' ugly now.

[MT]

Copied directly from wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_controversy)

"Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power"

"Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels (pollution from fossil fuels is blamed for many deaths each year in the U.S. alone). It also does not directly produce carbon dioxide, which has led some environmentalists to advocate increased reliance on nuclear energy as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

"Even at three mile island, the most severe civilian nuclear accident in the non-Soviet world, the reactor vessel and containment building were never breached, even though it had suffered a core meltdown, so that very little radiation (well below natural background radiation levels) was released into the environment"

There are many other facts in there that dispel the myths surrounding nuclear energy. As I said before, go have a read

If the basis of the arguement has turned to "nuclear is more expensive", tough. Something has to be done.

On a personal note, thanks grumybastard for raising this issue, it has been most educational.


Wikipedia. Any bugger can get on there and write anything they feel like. Try it.

I could get on their now and write any amount of tosh - for example 'about Landrovers been orginally being made by the Japanese,' and it would stay there until someone challenged it. Not quite the same as a reputable text subject to regulation and libel laws.

It is as much opinion as 'fact' and should be taken with a healthy dose of cynicism.

Try citing a Wikipedia 'fact' as a reference, even on an Undergraduate paper and see how far you go. When you assessor stops laughing you should get a good comment or two.

[moose]

here's the list of references quoted. Feel free to check up on them.
References

<LI id=_note-iea_pdf>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-iea_pdf_0) Key World Energy Statistics (http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/Textbase/nppdf/free/2006/key2006.pdf) (PDF). International Energy Agency (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_8). <LI id=_note-eia_s.1766>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-eia_s.1766_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-eia_s.1766_1) Impacts of Energy Research and Development With Analysis of Price-Anderson Act and Hydroelectic Relicensing (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/erd/nuclear.html). Nuclear Energy (Subtitle D, Section 1241). Energy Information Administration (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_8). <LI id=_note-npr20060501>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-npr20060501_0) Eleanor Beardsley (2006). France Presses Ahead with Nuclear Power (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php'storyId=5369610). NPR. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_8). <LI id=_note-0>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-0) Gross electricity generation, by fuel used in power-stations (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=sdi_cc&root=sdi_cc/sdi_cc/sdi_cc_ene/sdi_cc2300). Eurostat (2006). <LI id=_note-ieer>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-ieer_0) Makhijani, Arjun and Saleska, Scott (1996). The Nuclear Power Deception (http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html). Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Retrieved on -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/--). <LI id=_note-wna>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna_0) Nuclear Power in Russia (http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf45.html). World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-bbc17oct>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc17oct_0) On This Day: 17 October (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_3147000/3147145.stm). BBC News. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-cns-snc>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-cns-snc_0) Too Cheap to Meter? (http://www.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html). Canadian Nuclear Society (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-iaeapdf>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-iaeapdf_0) 50 Years of Nuclear Energy (http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC48/Documents/gc48inf-4_ftn3.pdf) (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-tbi>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-tbi_0) The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in the United States (http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm). Social Policy. The Brookings Institution (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-pbs>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-pbs_0) Dr. Charles Till. Nuclear Reaction: Why Do Americans Fear Nuclear Power? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html). Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-wmitnfc>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-wmitnfc_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-wmitnfc_1) c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-wmitnfc_2) Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html). Infomation and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-stanford-cohen>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-stanford-cohen_0) John McCarthy (2006). Facts From Choen and Others (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html). Progress and its Sustainability. Stanford. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-anpr>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-anpr_0) Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html). Infomation and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-thorium>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-thorium_0) Thorium (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-fusie-ongena>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-fusie-ongena_0) Ongena, J & Van Oost, G. Energy for Future Centuries (http://www.fusie-energie.nl/artikelen/ongena.pdf). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-uic-waste>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-uic-waste_0) Radioactive Waste Management (http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm). Uranium & Nuclear Power Information Centre (2002). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-adne>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-adne_0) Accelerator-driven Nuclear Energy (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2003). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-bbc-iranstandoff>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-iranstandoff_0) Q&A: Iran Nuclear Stand-Off (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm). BBC News (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-1>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-1) Baker, Peter; Linzer, Dafna. "Nuclear Energy Plan Would Use Spent Fuel (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502229.html)". Washington Post (2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-01-26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_26)). Retrieved on 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-01-31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_31). <LI id=_note-countryguardian>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-countryguardian_0) The Costs of Generating Electricity (http://www.countryguardian.net/generation_costs_report.pdf) (PDF). The Royal Academy of Engineering (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-teonp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-teonp_0) The Economics of Nuclear Power (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-mit>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-mit_0) The Future of Nuclear Power (http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/). Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2003). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-oko>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-oko_0) Uwe R. Fritsche (1997). Comparing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Costs of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life-Cycle Perspective (http://www.oeko.de/service/gemis/files/info/nuke_co2_en.pdf). Oko-Institut. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-2>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-2) Malcolm Grimston (December 2005). "The Importance of Politics to Nuclear New Build (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/sdp/Dec05nuclear.pdf#page=40)". Royal Institute of International Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institute_of_International_Affairs). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_17). <LI id=_note-3>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-3) Till Stenzel (September 2003). "What does it mean to keep the nuclear option open in the UK? (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/poste13.pdf#page=31)". Imperial College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_College). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_17). <LI id=_note-nustart>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nustart_0) NuStart Energy Picks Enercon for New Nuclear Power Plant License Applications for a GE ESBWR and a Westinghouse AP 1000 (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-11-2006/0004246911&EDATE=). PRNewswire (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-NRC_Information_Digest_2006-2007>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-NRC_Information_Digest_2006-2007_0) NUREG-1350 Vol. 18: NRC Information Digest 2006-2007 (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/) (PDF). Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2006). Retrieved on 2007-1-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php'title=2007-1-22&action=edit). <LI id=_note-wna-esaec>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-esaec_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-esaec_1) Energy Subsidies and External Costs (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-pbs-french>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-pbs-french_0) Jon Palfreman. Why the French Like Nuclear Power (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html). Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-berkeley>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-berkeley_0) Xu Mi (1999). Chinese Fast Reactor Technology Development (http://tauon.nuc.berkeley.edu/asia/2000/XuMi.pdf). China Institute of Atomic Energy. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-eaops>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-eaops_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-eaops_1) Energy Analysis of Power Systems (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-oilendgame>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-oilendgame_0) Levins, Amory; Kyle Datta, Jonathan Koomey, Nathan Glasglow (2004). Winning the Oil Endgame (http://www.oilendgame.com/). Rocky Mountain Institute. ISBN 1881071103 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php'title=Special:Booksources&isbn=1881071103). <LI id=_note-wna-ree>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-ree_0) Renewable Energy and Electricity (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-energy.ca.gov>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-energy.ca.gov_0) 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005_energypolicy/index.html). Docket #04-IEP-1, et al. California Energy Commission (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-sonpr>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-sonpr_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-sonpr_1) Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html). Infomation and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-usnrc-tmi>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-usnrc-tmi_0) Fact Sheet on the Accident at Three Mile Island (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nti-nwfu>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nti-nwfu_0) Vadim Nesvizhskiy (1999). Neutron Weapon from Underground (http://www.nti.org/db/nistraff/1999/19990670.htm). Research Library. Nuclear Threat Initiative. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-aa-ionsi>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-aa-ionsi_0) Infomation on Nuclear Smuggling Incidents (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Smuggling_details.shtml#4). Nuclear Almanac. Nuclear Threat Initiative. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-gu-wgus>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-gu-wgus_0) Amelia Gentleman and Ewen MacAskill (2001). Weapons-grade Uranium Seized (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,526856,00.html). Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-ag-trutiosftt>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-ag-trutiosftt_0) Pavel Simonov (2005). The Russian Uranium That is on Sale for the Terrorists (http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=328). Global Challenges Research. Axis. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-bbc-acodbt>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-acodbt_0) Action Call Over Dirty Bomb Threat (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2838743.stm). BBC News (2003). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-bbc-tgns>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-tgns_0) Thousands Guard Nuclear Shipment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4454932.stm). BBC News (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-tnfc>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-tnfc_0) The Nuclear Fuel Cycle (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-tbotas-dbdj>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-tbotas-dbdj_0) Lewis Z Kock (2004). Dirty Bomber? Dirty Justice (http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=jf04koch). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nrc-copiiep>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nrc-copiiep_0) Consideration of Potassium Iodide in Emergency Planning (http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/emerg-preparedness/protect-public/potassium-iodide.html). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-truthout>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-truthout_0) Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18461) (HTML). TruthOut (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-03-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_17). <LI id=_note-illattgen>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-illattgen_0) Madigan, Glasgow File Suit for Radioactive Leaks at Braidwood Nuclear Plant (http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2006_03/20060316.html) (HTML). Illinois Attorney General (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-03-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_17). <LI id=_note-doe-about>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-doe-about_0) About DOE (http://www.energy.gov/about/index.htm). U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wss-stsoet>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wss-stsoet_0) Babur Habib et al (2006). Stemming the Spread of Enrichment Technology (http://www.princeton.edu/~rskemp/Stemming_the_Spread_of_Enrichment_Plants.pdf) (PDF). Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-npec-afeotpdolwr>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-npec-afeotpdolwr_0) Victor Galinsky, Marvin Miller & Harmon Hubbard (2004). A Fresh Examination of the Proliferation Dangers of Light Water Reactors (http://www.npec-web.org/Reports/Report041022%20LWR.pdf) (PDF). Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nwa-inwptb>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nwa-inwptb_0) The Beginning: 1944-1960 (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaOrigin.html). India's Nuclear Weapons Program. Nuclear Weapon Archive (2001). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-fas-pnwac>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-fas-pnwac_0) Pakistan Nuclear Weapons — A Chronology (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/chron.htm). WMD Around the World. Federation of American Scientists (1998). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-fas-sanwp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-fas-sanwp_0) Nuclear Weapons Program (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/rsa/nuke/). WMD Around the World — South Africa. Federation of American Scientists (2000). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-aei-wur>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-aei-wur_0) James Jopf (2004). World Uranium Reserves (http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html). American Energy Independence. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nt-eeonp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nt-eeonp_0) Environmental Effects of Nuclear Power (http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/environ1.htm). The Virtual Nuclear Tourist (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-catf-dada>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-catf-dada_0) Dirty Air, Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants (http://www.catf.us/publications/view/24). Clean Air Task Force (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-stormsmith>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-stormsmith_0) Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (2003). Nuclear Power — The Energy Balance (http://www.stormsmith.nl/). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-bbc-nqffnp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-nqffnp_0) 'No Quick Fix' From Nuclear Power (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4778344.stm). BBC News (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-4) Is nuclear the answer? (http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html). Sustainable Development Commission (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-12-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_22).

An entry to nuclear power through an educational discussion of reactors (http://www.chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-10.htm)
The Nuclear Energy Option (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html), online book by Bernard L. Cohen. Pro nuclear power. Emphasis on risk estimates of nuclear.
Oldberg, T. and R. Christensen (1995) "Erratic Measure," (http://www.ndt.net/article/v04n05/oldberg/oldberg.htm) NDE for the Energy Industry 1995, pp. 1-6, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY
Oldberg, T. (2005) "An Ethical Problem in the Statistics of Defect Detection Test Reliability," (http://www.ndt.net/article/v10n05/oldberg/oldberg.htm) Address to the Golden Gate Chapter of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing, March 10, 2005
Steve Thomas (2005), "The Economics of Nuclear Power: analysis of recent studies" (http://www.psiru.org/reports/2005-09-E-Nuclear.pdf), PSIRU, University of Greenwich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Greenwich), UK
Nuclear power information archives from ALSOS, the National Digital Science Library at Washington & Lee University. (http://alsos.wlu.edu/adv_rst.aspx?query=nuclear+power&selection=keyword&source=all&results=10)
Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance (http://www.stormsmith.nl/) A comprehensive yet controversial lifecycle assessment of nuclear power generation by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, update August 2005
Critical Hour: Three Mile Island, The Nuclear Legacy, And National Security (http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdf) Online book by Albert J. Fritsch, Arthur H. Purcell, and Mary Byrd Davis (2005), Updated edition (http://www.earthhealing.info/chupdate.html) June 2006

[moose]

Nothin' ugly about it Dobbo!:p

[D110V8D]

We dont need to go Nuclear to survive as a race on this pile of dirt.


WE need to think smarter......not easier!

Forget about nuclear.......we have power at our fingertips........we have to harness it.

[p38arover]

3. They cannot make the trains run on time (how hard can it be - the old saying goes that even Mussolini could make the trains run on time in Itay 70 years ago!)



When you (sic) assessor stops laughing you should get a good comment or two.

If you knew anything about running trains, you'd know that your comment is farcical.

The biggest problems with running trains on time are caused by passengers - assaults, robberies, excreting in trains and wiping it over seats, etc., vomiting, getting of the train to have a smoke leaving their kids on the train then screaming blue murder that the train has left with their kids, drug addicts overdosing, drunks, kicking windows out (pax cannot travel in trails with missing windows or smashed windows), throwing seats out of the trains, people throwing rocks at the trains, putting rocks under trainstops to set signals at stop, putting object on the line, etc.

I've just been watching 4 Transit Officers and 6 police outside my signal box dealing with drunk pax who were causing problems. One pax arrested.

Ron

[moose]

WE need to think smarter......not easier!


Absolutly nothing wrong with that statement. :)

[shorty943]

Point no.2 Clean? Isn't it true that "venting" is a standard practice at nuclear reactors involving the release of radioactive gases to the atmosphere?
Point no. 3 CO2 reduction? Nuclear powerstations will not remove a hell of a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere.
What about the energy required to build the reactor and mine, mill and process the uranium? That contributes to greenhouse gases. The claims about removing CO2 ignore the contribution of these stages in the process.
Point no. 6. How can it be long term if the reserves of high grade ore are so limited? When we move to lower grade ore, the CO2 emitted in the mining and milling becomes even greater.
How do nuclear reactors work? Are you asking about Generation I, Light Water Generation II (which make up the majority of existing reactors and do you mean the Pressurised Water Reactors or the Boiling Water Reactors) or Heavy Water Generation II Reactors, or Generation III such as the AP-1000 PWR or III+ Reactors or Generation IV. They all have their problems including the problem with Gen IV relying on fuel and plant performance figures that have not been tested let alone proven to be achievable and requiring metals to resist corrosion way beyond anything that has been achieved so far.

Evening Allan, yes, venting is a "standard" practice, during a non standard operation parameter. Even from an operational point, definately not a first resort, or choice. The CO2 thing, don't put words in my mouth please. I never said NP removes CO2, only that it does not contribute to it whilst running. I also think you might find I mentioned that NP is not at all cheap to set up. But, once commissioned into service, yes they are fuel efficient on a ton of fuel per kilowatt basis,and yes, I agree that all reactors have pro's and con's, as do all other forms of industrialisation.
The petrochemical industry is a nightmare of polution, from end to end, yet we love our tupperware and our waterproof nylon carpets in the Disco, don't we?
How about the filthy mess the DuPont and Monsanto mobs have made with organo-phosphates, and Agent Orange, but we puff our chest up over our prize roses don't we?
How about the mess in India from Union Carbide, but we love our wizzbang techtoys with the rechargeable batteries.
Yep, this is really a very emotional topic, more than a political or even an eccological one, in a lot of ways. It truly is a very great shame, that the peacefull bennefits, for want of a better term ( trust me, I do dislike the pop terms of the press) of E=MC2 were far overshadowed by the dreadfull power unleashed if the reaction is not controlled.
And lastly, my question was a more generalised one on how a nuke power station works. I am not so arrogant as to expect everybody to know how a reactor works. The answer? Pretty much the same way as a conventional power station actually, in lay terms for everybody else. The heat produced by the controlled reaction, is used to boil water off to "Superheated Steam" (and that is the correct term, I have my open class steam certificates, so please be polite.) which is used to drive turbines that drive the alternators.

So to sum up, yes there are some concerns over reactor safety. Unfortunately, it has been my belief for many years, this is the way we must go. Rather than be terrified out of our little wits, because somebody said we should be. I think maybe, we should learn, and make damn sure things are setup and run in the right way from the start. The Navy lost 4 beautiful young Australians on the Westralia, because a bloody penny pinching public servant decided second best was good enough. Well we should all say screw them, they are the SERVANT, and they have no say on what we decide is best. If this country must go with NP, then we had better demand nothing but the best, and let the government know, we are watching. WE employ them, WE can sack them. No second best shortcuts can be tolerated by us the public, when and if it comes to Nuclear Power in this country. I'm not gungho for NP, no way mate. Some parts of my old job, still not nice in my mind. But, what do we do?

Hell, it looks like I'm in my under-rants again, reading back on that, sorry.

Shorty.

[MT]

here's the list of references quoted. Feel free to check up on them.
References

<LI id=_note-iea_pdf>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-iea_pdf_0) Key World Energy Statistics (http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/Textbase/nppdf/free/2006/key2006.pdf) (PDF). International Energy Agency (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_8). <LI id=_note-eia_s.1766>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-eia_s.1766_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-eia_s.1766_1) Impacts of Energy Research and Development With Analysis of Price-Anderson Act and Hydroelectic Relicensing (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/erd/nuclear.html). Nuclear Energy (Subtitle D, Section 1241). Energy Information Administration (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_8). <LI id=_note-npr20060501>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-npr20060501_0) Eleanor Beardsley (2006). France Presses Ahead with Nuclear Power (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php'storyId=5369610). NPR. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_8). <LI id=_note-0>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-0) Gross electricity generation, by fuel used in power-stations (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=sdi_cc&root=sdi_cc/sdi_cc/sdi_cc_ene/sdi_cc2300). Eurostat (2006). <LI id=_note-ieer>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-ieer_0) Makhijani, Arjun and Saleska, Scott (1996). The Nuclear Power Deception (http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html). Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Retrieved on -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/--). <LI id=_note-wna>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna_0) Nuclear Power in Russia (http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf45.html). World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-bbc17oct>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc17oct_0) On This Day: 17 October (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_3147000/3147145.stm). BBC News. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-cns-snc>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-cns-snc_0) Too Cheap to Meter? (http://www.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html). Canadian Nuclear Society (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-iaeapdf>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-iaeapdf_0) 50 Years of Nuclear Energy (http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC48/Documents/gc48inf-4_ftn3.pdf) (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-tbi>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-tbi_0) The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in the United States (http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm). Social Policy. The Brookings Institution (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-pbs>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-pbs_0) Dr. Charles Till. Nuclear Reaction: Why Do Americans Fear Nuclear Power? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html). Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-wmitnfc>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-wmitnfc_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-wmitnfc_1) c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-wmitnfc_2) Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html). Infomation and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-stanford-cohen>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-stanford-cohen_0) John McCarthy (2006). Facts From Choen and Others (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html). Progress and its Sustainability. Stanford. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-anpr>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-anpr_0) Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html). Infomation and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-thorium>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-thorium_0) Thorium (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-fusie-ongena>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-fusie-ongena_0) Ongena, J & Van Oost, G. Energy for Future Centuries (http://www.fusie-energie.nl/artikelen/ongena.pdf). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-uic-waste>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-uic-waste_0) Radioactive Waste Management (http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm). Uranium & Nuclear Power Information Centre (2002). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-adne>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-adne_0) Accelerator-driven Nuclear Energy (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2003). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-bbc-iranstandoff>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-iranstandoff_0) Q&A: Iran Nuclear Stand-Off (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm). BBC News (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-1>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-1) Baker, Peter; Linzer, Dafna. "Nuclear Energy Plan Would Use Spent Fuel (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502229.html)". Washington Post (2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-01-26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_26)). Retrieved on 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-01-31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_31). <LI id=_note-countryguardian>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-countryguardian_0) The Costs of Generating Electricity (http://www.countryguardian.net/generation_costs_report.pdf) (PDF). The Royal Academy of Engineering (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-teonp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-teonp_0) The Economics of Nuclear Power (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-mit>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-mit_0) The Future of Nuclear Power (http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/). Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2003). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-oko>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-oko_0) Uwe R. Fritsche (1997). Comparing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Costs of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life-Cycle Perspective (http://www.oeko.de/service/gemis/files/info/nuke_co2_en.pdf). Oko-Institut. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-2>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-2) Malcolm Grimston (December 2005). "The Importance of Politics to Nuclear New Build (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/sdp/Dec05nuclear.pdf#page=40)". Royal Institute of International Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institute_of_International_Affairs). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_17). <LI id=_note-3>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-3) Till Stenzel (September 2003). "What does it mean to keep the nuclear option open in the UK? (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/poste13.pdf#page=31)". Imperial College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_College). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_17). <LI id=_note-nustart>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nustart_0) NuStart Energy Picks Enercon for New Nuclear Power Plant License Applications for a GE ESBWR and a Westinghouse AP 1000 (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-11-2006/0004246911&EDATE=). PRNewswire (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-NRC_Information_Digest_2006-2007>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-NRC_Information_Digest_2006-2007_0) NUREG-1350 Vol. 18: NRC Information Digest 2006-2007 (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/) (PDF). Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2006). Retrieved on 2007-1-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php'title=2007-1-22&action=edit). <LI id=_note-wna-esaec>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-esaec_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-esaec_1) Energy Subsidies and External Costs (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-pbs-french>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-pbs-french_0) Jon Palfreman. Why the French Like Nuclear Power (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html). Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-berkeley>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-berkeley_0) Xu Mi (1999). Chinese Fast Reactor Technology Development (http://tauon.nuc.berkeley.edu/asia/2000/XuMi.pdf). China Institute of Atomic Energy. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-eaops>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-eaops_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-eaops_1) Energy Analysis of Power Systems (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-oilendgame>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-oilendgame_0) Levins, Amory; Kyle Datta, Jonathan Koomey, Nathan Glasglow (2004). Winning the Oil Endgame (http://www.oilendgame.com/). Rocky Mountain Institute. ISBN 1881071103 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php'title=Special:Booksources&isbn=1881071103). <LI id=_note-wna-ree>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-ree_0) Renewable Energy and Electricity (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-energy.ca.gov>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-energy.ca.gov_0) 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005_energypolicy/index.html). Docket #04-IEP-1, et al. California Energy Commission (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-sonpr>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-sonpr_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-sonpr_1) Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html). Infomation and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-usnrc-tmi>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-usnrc-tmi_0) Fact Sheet on the Accident at Three Mile Island (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nti-nwfu>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nti-nwfu_0) Vadim Nesvizhskiy (1999). Neutron Weapon from Underground (http://www.nti.org/db/nistraff/1999/19990670.htm). Research Library. Nuclear Threat Initiative. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-aa-ionsi>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-aa-ionsi_0) Infomation on Nuclear Smuggling Incidents (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Smuggling_details.shtml#4). Nuclear Almanac. Nuclear Threat Initiative. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-gu-wgus>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-gu-wgus_0) Amelia Gentleman and Ewen MacAskill (2001). Weapons-grade Uranium Seized (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,526856,00.html). Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-ag-trutiosftt>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-ag-trutiosftt_0) Pavel Simonov (2005). The Russian Uranium That is on Sale for the Terrorists (http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=328). Global Challenges Research. Axis. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-bbc-acodbt>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-acodbt_0) Action Call Over Dirty Bomb Threat (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2838743.stm). BBC News (2003). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-bbc-tgns>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-tgns_0) Thousands Guard Nuclear Shipment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4454932.stm). BBC News (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-tnfc>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-tnfc_0) The Nuclear Fuel Cycle (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-tbotas-dbdj>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-tbotas-dbdj_0) Lewis Z Kock (2004). Dirty Bomber? Dirty Justice (http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=jf04koch). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nrc-copiiep>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nrc-copiiep_0) Consideration of Potassium Iodide in Emergency Planning (http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/emerg-preparedness/protect-public/potassium-iodide.html). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-truthout>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-truthout_0) Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18461) (HTML). TruthOut (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-03-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_17). <LI id=_note-illattgen>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-illattgen_0) Madigan, Glasgow File Suit for Radioactive Leaks at Braidwood Nuclear Plant (http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2006_03/20060316.html) (HTML). Illinois Attorney General (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-03-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_17). <LI id=_note-doe-about>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-doe-about_0) About DOE (http://www.energy.gov/about/index.htm). U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wss-stsoet>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wss-stsoet_0) Babur Habib et al (2006). Stemming the Spread of Enrichment Technology (http://www.princeton.edu/~rskemp/Stemming_the_Spread_of_Enrichment_Plants.pdf) (PDF). Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-npec-afeotpdolwr>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-npec-afeotpdolwr_0) Victor Galinsky, Marvin Miller & Harmon Hubbard (2004). A Fresh Examination of the Proliferation Dangers of Light Water Reactors (http://www.npec-web.org/Reports/Report041022%20LWR.pdf) (PDF). Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nwa-inwptb>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nwa-inwptb_0) The Beginning: 1944-1960 (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaOrigin.html). India's Nuclear Weapons Program. Nuclear Weapon Archive (2001). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-fas-pnwac>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-fas-pnwac_0) Pakistan Nuclear Weapons — A Chronology (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/chron.htm). WMD Around the World. Federation of American Scientists (1998). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-fas-sanwp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-fas-sanwp_0) Nuclear Weapons Program (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/rsa/nuke/). WMD Around the World — South Africa. Federation of American Scientists (2000). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-aei-wur>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-aei-wur_0) James Jopf (2004). World Uranium Reserves (http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html). American Energy Independence. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nt-eeonp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nt-eeonp_0) Environmental Effects of Nuclear Power (http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/environ1.htm). The Virtual Nuclear Tourist (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-catf-dada>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-catf-dada_0) Dirty Air, Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants (http://www.catf.us/publications/view/24). Clean Air Task Force (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-stormsmith>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-stormsmith_0) Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (2003). Nuclear Power — The Energy Balance (http://www.stormsmith.nl/). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-bbc-nqffnp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-nqffnp_0) 'No Quick Fix' From Nuclear Power (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4778344.stm). BBC News (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-4) Is nuclear the answer? (http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html). Sustainable Development Commission (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-12-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_22).
An entry to nuclear power through an educational discussion of reactors (http://www.chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-10.htm)
The Nuclear Energy Option (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html), online book by Bernard L. Cohen. Pro nuclear power. Emphasis on risk estimates of nuclear.
Oldberg, T. and R. Christensen (1995) "Erratic Measure," (http://www.ndt.net/article/v04n05/oldberg/oldberg.htm) NDE for the Energy Industry 1995, pp. 1-6, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY
Oldberg, T. (2005) "An Ethical Problem in the Statistics of Defect Detection Test Reliability," (http://www.ndt.net/article/v10n05/oldberg/oldberg.htm) Address to the Golden Gate Chapter of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing, March 10, 2005
Steve Thomas (2005), "The Economics of Nuclear Power: analysis of recent studies" (http://www.psiru.org/reports/2005-09-E-Nuclear.pdf), PSIRU, University of Greenwich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Greenwich), UK
Nuclear power information archives from ALSOS, the National Digital Science Library at Washington & Lee University. (http://alsos.wlu.edu/adv_rst.aspx?query=nuclear+power&selection=keyword&source=all&results=10)
Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance (http://www.stormsmith.nl/) A comprehensive yet controversial lifecycle assessment of nuclear power generation by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, update August 2005
Critical Hour: Three Mile Island, The Nuclear Legacy, And National Security (http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdf) Online book by Albert J. Fritsch, Arthur H. Purcell, and Mary Byrd Davis (2005), Updated edition (http://www.earthhealing.info/chupdate.html) June 2006
That would be pointless unless I had some specific subject matter knowledge as to the credibility of both the author of the post and all of the journals / texts and authors cited.

I don't. Do you?

The point I am making is that just because something sounds or looks credible does not mean that it is.

Propaganda in wartime looks credible to the target audience- it is designed to. That does not mean that it is.

Should we trust because someone has taken the time to post it, so it must be all ridgy didge? If that is the case, I have a friend with some money stuck in a bank account in Nigeria.........

I reiterate. There have been numerous instances of blatant lies being posted on Wikipedia and staying there for protracted periods. Take it all with a pinch of salt.

[D110V8D]

If you knew anything about running trains, you'd know that your comment is farcical.

The biggest problems with running trains on time are caused by passengers - assaults, robberies, excreting in trains and wiping it over seats, etc., vomiting, getting of the train to have a smoke leaving their kids on the train then screaming blue nurder that the train has left with their kids, drug addicts overdosing, drunks, kicking windows out (pax cannot travel in trails with missing windows or smashed windows), thorwing seats out of the trains, people throwing rocks at the trains, putting rocks under trainstops to set signals at stop, putting object on the line, etc.

I've just been watching 4 Transit Officers and 6 police outside my signal box dealing with drunk pax who were causing problems. One pax arrested.

Ron

Ron......You forgot to mention the bastards who paint those beautiful murals on the sides of the trains! They cause all sorts of delays to the system.;)

[p38arover]

Ron......You forgot to mention the bastards who paint those beautiful murals on the sides of the trains! They cause all sorts of delays to the system.;)

They certainly do. Especially when one gets killed.

There's about one death per week on NSW rail - it doesn't get into the news 'cos a number are suicides and they don't want people emulating them. A death really stuffs the network.

You'd be surprised how many people fall down between the platform and the train (and don't get injured).

Ron

[Jamo]

Nuke 'em 'till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!

[MT]

If you knew anything about running trains, you'd know that your comment is farcical.

getting of the train to have a smoke leaving their kids on the train then screaming blue (sic) nurder that the train has left with their kids, drug addicts overdosing, drunks, kicking windows out (pax cannot travel in trails with missing windows or smashed windows), (sic)thorwing seats out of the trains, people throwing rocks at the trains, putting rocks under trainstops to set signals at stop, putting object on the line, etc.

I've just been watching 4 Transit Officers and 6 police outside my signal box dealing with drunk pax who were causing problems. One pax arrested.

Ron
Old jungle saying "he who types fast and does not spell check should not quote others similar mistakes".

[dobbo]

3.They cannot make the trains run on time (how hard can it be - the old saying goes that even Mussolini could make the trains run on time in Itay 70 years ago!)


Then he got hung up by his goolies in the town square. You forgot to mention how many trains Mussolini's network had on it.

[drivesafe]

Folks, there are alternatives that do not have the potential dangers that nuclear power has so why the push for nuclear power.

Again, in this present push by Howard, the only beneficiaries will be Howard's mates and even that is in the very short term.

As for nuclear power being non pollutant, Nuclear power stations produce far more heat per kilowatt of power than does a coal fired power station and heat of this magnitude is pollution and a nuclear power station uses between 20 and 83% MORE WATER than a comparable sized coal fired station does and like we have heaps of water to spare NOT and this info is from the federal governments recently released paper on the proposals for the use of nuclear power here in Australia.

[MT]

Then he got hung up by his goolies in the town square. You forgot to mention how many trains Mussolini's network had on it.
Good point. :cool:

Guess it was one hell of a micro-managed train.

[D110V8D]

They certainly do. Especially when one gets killed.

There's about one death per week on NSW rail - it doesn't get into the news 'cos a number are suicides and they don't want people emulating them. A death really stuffs the network.

You'd be surprised how many people fall down between the platform and the train (and don't get injured).

Ron


You dont get dead in a yard.;)


I have recovered a friend from between train carriages......drunk.......and would have been killed......and would have delayed the service!:D ;)

[p38arover]

Old jungle saying "he who types fast and does not spell check should not quote others similar mistakes".

It's called Muphry's Law.

:D :D

[moose]

I don't. Do you?

Nup, that's why I'm researching my posts....


The point I am making is that just because something sounds or looks credible does not mean that it is.

Propaganda in wartime looks credible to the target audience- it is designed to. That does not mean that it is.

Should we trust because someone has taken the time to post it, so it must be all ridgy didge? If that is the case, I have a friend with some money stuck in a bank account in Nigeria.........

I reiterate. There have been numerous instances of blatant lies being posted on Wikipedia and staying there for protracted periods. Take it all with a pinch of salt.


So I should believe you instead of 60 different quoted texts:confused:

[MT]

Nup, that's why I'm reasearching my posts....




So I should believe you instead of 60 different quoted texts:confused:


Definitely not, I know two tenths of #$%all about it (Nuclear power that is). That is why I have not made any post about the facts of it.

My comment was about who could we trust to run and supervise it. I would want to do a lot more research (like you are trying) before I formed any opinion about the relative merits of the nuclear case. I guess that the point I was trying to make is that there is a lot of 'opinion' on the net (including wikipedia and , heavens forbid, our beloved AULRO) that occasionally poses as fact.

On another note - damn you Ron, I am typing really slowly now for fear of another spelling correction lesson!:D

[p38arover]

On another note - damn you Ron, I am typing really slowly now for fear of another spelling correction lesson!:D

:D

I can't install ieSpell on this work machine and the keyboard is really woeful and it's easy to hit wrong keys.

Ron

[moose]

Agreed, who to run and supervise such a facility would be quite a debate in itself.

[p38arover]

I shall have to ask my brother-in-law for his views. He is a nuclear physicist and worked for many years at Lucas Heights.

Ron

[shorty943]

On another note - damn you Ron, I am typing really slowly now for fear of another spelling correction lesson!:D

Could everybody type slower please. I can't read that fast.:angel:

Nice list of researchable information MT. Take some time (see above :p ), but, as I posted earlier, the more we learn the better of we will be in the long run.
Really not in love with the prospect, but needs must be met. It may be, my theory on the the worlds oil pockets is nearly right, and we wont need to worry.

But, I am sometimes a pessimist, and the outcome is not nice in this case.:(

Shorty.

[D110V8D]

I know how much I look forward to stuff coming in for repair labeled as "clean" and we put it into the kiln for "annealing" (not really) and all sorts of fumes form on the roof of the kiln and surrounds.


Makes me want to be a glass blower!;) :p


Nuclear phisicists can blow me.......I know what they're into!:eek: :eek:

On that note.....most scientists can blow balloons.....I'm not interested.;) :p :p :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[p38arover]

Another train delayed just now owing to a youth throwing seats off the train here on the platform right outside my box.

Now awaiting police.

Ron

[D110V8D]

Another train delayed just now owing to a youth throwing seats off the train here on the platform right outside my box.

Now awaiting police.

Ron

Is the train delayed?


Have a look on the side of the train (opposite) the platform.;)


Prolly doin "Run Ups" while it's stationary.....never know....maybe a window down whole car!;) :p :p

[shorty943]

Can't call your night slow then Ron?

Shorty.

[p38arover]

The train's gone - but it's more likely the freighter I've had stuck in the refuge has been hit.

The cops are here. Friday and Saturday nights are bad. So was Thursday night

Ron

[Tank]

Copied directly from wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_controversy)

"Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power"

"Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels (pollution from fossil fuels is blamed for many deaths each year in the U.S. alone). It also does not directly produce carbon dioxide, which has led some environmentalists to advocate increased reliance on nuclear energy as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

"Even at three mile island, the most severe civilian nuclear accident in the non-Soviet world, the reactor vessel and containment building were never breached, even though it had suffered a core meltdown, so that very little radiation (well below natural background radiation levels) was released into the environment"

There are many other facts in there that dispel the myths surrounding nuclear energy. As I said before, go have a read

If the basis of the arguement has turned to "nuclear is more expensive", tough. Something has to be done.

On a personal note, thanks grumybastard for raising this issue, it has been most educational.
Moose the mining of uranium ore produces Radon gas which is radioactive and is released into the air when mined, also when crushed for treatment and then there is the radioactive tailings from the processing to yellow cake and more Co2 produced when they turn the yellow cake into uranium oxide by using fossil fuels to heat it, which is all produced here in Australia and then there is the enormous mileages by trucks to deliver to ports for shipment overseas, more co2 from the ship, then it has to be enriched, more co2, the way some of you advocates are talking this uranium fuel magically turns up at the reactor with no cost to the environment. I worked at Mary Kathleen Uranium mine and the amount of infrastucture to mine, transport, crush, process and transport is enormous, they have dismantled Mary K now, but if you go to Google Earth and have a look at the devastation caused by the mining and Tailings dam you will see the impact on the environment. it is about halfway between Cloncurry and Mt.Isa. If you look at the other uranium mines you will see the enormous tailings dams with there radioactive waste, you will notice they are also in the middle of nowhere, so transport rears it's head again.
Something wikipedia might not tell you. When the Yanks were developing the Atomic bomb during the second world war, they knew that the explosion was caused by a chain reaction of the radioactive material used, WHAT THE BASTARDS DIDN'T KNOW was that the chain reaction they were inducing may have continued on and on and destroyed the entire world, YET THEY STILL WENT AHEAD AND DID IT, now that's what I call arrogance, they were willing to destroy a planet to develop the bomb, you gotta remeber NO ONE back then knew anything about nuclear chain reaction, 62 years later and still no safe way of disposing of nuclear waste, has anyone asked why the Yanks haven't built any NP stations since the 70's, Cost maybe, Regards Frank.

[Tank]

here's the list of references quoted. Feel free to check up on them.
References

<LI id=_note-iea_pdf>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-iea_pdf_0) Key World Energy Statistics (http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/Textbase/nppdf/free/2006/key2006.pdf) (PDF). International Energy Agency (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_8). <LI id=_note-eia_s.1766>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-eia_s.1766_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-eia_s.1766_1) Impacts of Energy Research and Development With Analysis of Price-Anderson Act and Hydroelectic Relicensing (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/erd/nuclear.html). Nuclear Energy (Subtitle D, Section 1241). Energy Information Administration (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_8). <LI id=_note-npr20060501>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-npr20060501_0) Eleanor Beardsley (2006). France Presses Ahead with Nuclear Power (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php'storyId=5369610). NPR. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_8). <LI id=_note-0>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-0) Gross electricity generation, by fuel used in power-stations (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=sdi_cc&root=sdi_cc/sdi_cc/sdi_cc_ene/sdi_cc2300). Eurostat (2006). <LI id=_note-ieer>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-ieer_0) Makhijani, Arjun and Saleska, Scott (1996). The Nuclear Power Deception (http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html). Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Retrieved on -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/--). <LI id=_note-wna>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna_0) Nuclear Power in Russia (http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf45.html). World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-bbc17oct>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc17oct_0) On This Day: 17 October (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_3147000/3147145.stm). BBC News. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-cns-snc>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-cns-snc_0) Too Cheap to Meter? (http://www.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html). Canadian Nuclear Society (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-iaeapdf>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-iaeapdf_0) 50 Years of Nuclear Energy (http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC48/Documents/gc48inf-4_ftn3.pdf) (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-tbi>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-tbi_0) The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in the United States (http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm). Social Policy. The Brookings Institution (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-pbs>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-pbs_0) Dr. Charles Till. Nuclear Reaction: Why Do Americans Fear Nuclear Power? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html). Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-wmitnfc>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-wmitnfc_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-wmitnfc_1) c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-wmitnfc_2) Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html). Infomation and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-stanford-cohen>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-stanford-cohen_0) John McCarthy (2006). Facts From Choen and Others (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html). Progress and its Sustainability. Stanford. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-anpr>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-anpr_0) Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html). Infomation and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-thorium>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-thorium_0) Thorium (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-fusie-ongena>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-fusie-ongena_0) Ongena, J & Van Oost, G. Energy for Future Centuries (http://www.fusie-energie.nl/artikelen/ongena.pdf). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-uic-waste>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-uic-waste_0) Radioactive Waste Management (http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm). Uranium & Nuclear Power Information Centre (2002). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-adne>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-adne_0) Accelerator-driven Nuclear Energy (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2003). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-bbc-iranstandoff>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-iranstandoff_0) Q&A: Iran Nuclear Stand-Off (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm). BBC News (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-1>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-1) Baker, Peter; Linzer, Dafna. "Nuclear Energy Plan Would Use Spent Fuel (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502229.html)". Washington Post (2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-01-26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_26)). Retrieved on 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-01-31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_31). <LI id=_note-countryguardian>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-countryguardian_0) The Costs of Generating Electricity (http://www.countryguardian.net/generation_costs_report.pdf) (PDF). The Royal Academy of Engineering (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-teonp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-teonp_0) The Economics of Nuclear Power (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-mit>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-mit_0) The Future of Nuclear Power (http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/). Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2003). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-oko>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-oko_0) Uwe R. Fritsche (1997). Comparing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Costs of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life-Cycle Perspective (http://www.oeko.de/service/gemis/files/info/nuke_co2_en.pdf). Oko-Institut. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-2>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-2) Malcolm Grimston (December 2005). "The Importance of Politics to Nuclear New Build (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/sdp/Dec05nuclear.pdf#page=40)". Royal Institute of International Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institute_of_International_Affairs). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_17). <LI id=_note-3>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-3) Till Stenzel (September 2003). "What does it mean to keep the nuclear option open in the UK? (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/poste13.pdf#page=31)". Imperial College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_College). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_17). <LI id=_note-nustart>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nustart_0) NuStart Energy Picks Enercon for New Nuclear Power Plant License Applications for a GE ESBWR and a Westinghouse AP 1000 (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-11-2006/0004246911&EDATE=). PRNewswire (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-NRC_Information_Digest_2006-2007>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-NRC_Information_Digest_2006-2007_0) NUREG-1350 Vol. 18: NRC Information Digest 2006-2007 (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/) (PDF). Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2006). Retrieved on 2007-1-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php'title=2007-1-22&action=edit). <LI id=_note-wna-esaec>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-esaec_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-esaec_1) Energy Subsidies and External Costs (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-pbs-french>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-pbs-french_0) Jon Palfreman. Why the French Like Nuclear Power (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html). Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-berkeley>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-berkeley_0) Xu Mi (1999). Chinese Fast Reactor Technology Development (http://tauon.nuc.berkeley.edu/asia/2000/XuMi.pdf). China Institute of Atomic Energy. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-eaops>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-eaops_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-eaops_1) Energy Analysis of Power Systems (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-oilendgame>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-oilendgame_0) Levins, Amory; Kyle Datta, Jonathan Koomey, Nathan Glasglow (2004). Winning the Oil Endgame (http://www.oilendgame.com/). Rocky Mountain Institute. ISBN 1881071103 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php'title=Special:Booksources&isbn=1881071103). <LI id=_note-wna-ree>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-ree_0) Renewable Energy and Electricity (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-energy.ca.gov>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-energy.ca.gov_0) 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005_energypolicy/index.html). Docket #04-IEP-1, et al. California Energy Commission (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-sonpr>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-sonpr_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-sonpr_1) Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html). Infomation and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-usnrc-tmi>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-usnrc-tmi_0) Fact Sheet on the Accident at Three Mile Island (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nti-nwfu>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nti-nwfu_0) Vadim Nesvizhskiy (1999). Neutron Weapon from Underground (http://www.nti.org/db/nistraff/1999/19990670.htm). Research Library. Nuclear Threat Initiative. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-aa-ionsi>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-aa-ionsi_0) Infomation on Nuclear Smuggling Incidents (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Smuggling_details.shtml#4). Nuclear Almanac. Nuclear Threat Initiative. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-gu-wgus>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-gu-wgus_0) Amelia Gentleman and Ewen MacAskill (2001). Weapons-grade Uranium Seized (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,526856,00.html). Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-ag-trutiosftt>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-ag-trutiosftt_0) Pavel Simonov (2005). The Russian Uranium That is on Sale for the Terrorists (http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=328). Global Challenges Research. Axis. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-bbc-acodbt>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-acodbt_0) Action Call Over Dirty Bomb Threat (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2838743.stm). BBC News (2003). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-bbc-tgns>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-tgns_0) Thousands Guard Nuclear Shipment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4454932.stm). BBC News (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-tnfc>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-tnfc_0) The Nuclear Fuel Cycle (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-tbotas-dbdj>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-tbotas-dbdj_0) Lewis Z Kock (2004). Dirty Bomber? Dirty Justice (http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=jf04koch). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nrc-copiiep>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nrc-copiiep_0) Consideration of Potassium Iodide in Emergency Planning (http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/emerg-preparedness/protect-public/potassium-iodide.html). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-truthout>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-truthout_0) Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18461) (HTML). TruthOut (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-03-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_17). <LI id=_note-illattgen>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-illattgen_0) Madigan, Glasgow File Suit for Radioactive Leaks at Braidwood Nuclear Plant (http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2006_03/20060316.html) (HTML). Illinois Attorney General (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-03-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_17). <LI id=_note-doe-about>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-doe-about_0) About DOE (http://www.energy.gov/about/index.htm). U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wss-stsoet>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wss-stsoet_0) Babur Habib et al (2006). Stemming the Spread of Enrichment Technology (http://www.princeton.edu/~rskemp/Stemming_the_Spread_of_Enrichment_Plants.pdf) (PDF). Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-npec-afeotpdolwr>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-npec-afeotpdolwr_0) Victor Galinsky, Marvin Miller & Harmon Hubbard (2004). A Fresh Examination of the Proliferation Dangers of Light Water Reactors (http://www.npec-web.org/Reports/Report041022%20LWR.pdf) (PDF). Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nwa-inwptb>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nwa-inwptb_0) The Beginning: 1944-1960 (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaOrigin.html). India's Nuclear Weapons Program. Nuclear Weapon Archive (2001). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-fas-pnwac>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-fas-pnwac_0) Pakistan Nuclear Weapons — A Chronology (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/chron.htm). WMD Around the World. Federation of American Scientists (1998). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-fas-sanwp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-fas-sanwp_0) Nuclear Weapons Program (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/rsa/nuke/). WMD Around the World — South Africa. Federation of American Scientists (2000). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-aei-wur>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-aei-wur_0) James Jopf (2004). World Uranium Reserves (http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html). American Energy Independence. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nt-eeonp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nt-eeonp_0) Environmental Effects of Nuclear Power (http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/environ1.htm). The Virtual Nuclear Tourist (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-catf-dada>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-catf-dada_0) Dirty Air, Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants (http://www.catf.us/publications/view/24). Clean Air Task Force (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-stormsmith>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-stormsmith_0) Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (2003). Nuclear Power — The Energy Balance (http://www.stormsmith.nl/). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-bbc-nqffnp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-nqffnp_0) 'No Quick Fix' From Nuclear Power (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4778344.stm). BBC News (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-4) Is nuclear the answer? (http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html). Sustainable Development Commission (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-12-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_22).

An entry to nuclear power through an educational discussion of reactors (http://www.chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-10.htm)
The Nuclear Energy Option (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html), online book by Bernard L. Cohen. Pro nuclear power. Emphasis on risk estimates of nuclear.
Oldberg, T. and R. Christensen (1995) "Erratic Measure," (http://www.ndt.net/article/v04n05/oldberg/oldberg.htm) NDE for the Energy Industry 1995, pp. 1-6, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY
Oldberg, T. (2005) "An Ethical Problem in the Statistics of Defect Detection Test Reliability," (http://www.ndt.net/article/v10n05/oldberg/oldberg.htm) Address to the Golden Gate Chapter of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing, March 10, 2005
Steve Thomas (2005), "The Economics of Nuclear Power: analysis of recent studies" (http://www.psiru.org/reports/2005-09-E-Nuclear.pdf), PSIRU, University of Greenwich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Greenwich), UK
Nuclear power information archives from ALSOS, the National Digital Science Library at Washington & Lee University. (http://alsos.wlu.edu/adv_rst.aspx?query=nuclear+power&selection=keyword&source=all&results=10)
Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance (http://www.stormsmith.nl/) A comprehensive yet controversial lifecycle assessment of nuclear power generation by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, update August 2005
Critical Hour: Three Mile Island, The Nuclear Legacy, And National Security (http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdf) Online book by Albert J. Fritsch, Arthur H. Purcell, and Mary Byrd Davis (2005), Updated edition (http://www.earthhealing.info/chupdate.html) June 2006
Moose did you check them all out or did you just Copy and Paste, Regards Frank.

[D110V8D]

The train's gone - but it's more likely the freighter I've had stuck in the refuge has been hit.

The cops are here. Friday and Saturday nights are bad. So was Thursday night

Ron


Never mind....It's not your fault.;)

Writers will always be painting........where ever the opportunity .......frieghts or public stuff.......it dont matter.:angel:

Relax and have a good night.:)

[D110V8D]

BTW...yes I'm drunk.....yes I cant spell for ****!

[shorty943]

Tank, we had family friends worked at Mary K, Von Doussa. gone now. My old man worked in mining supplying NASA and the Aerospace industry. Ores for rocket bodies, for the Moon shots, etc. He died at 60.
Former Governor of SA. Sir Mark Oliphant was one of the physicists who put the bombs together, won the Nobel Peace Prize. In the Navy in the Early 70's, NBCD (Nuclear Biological and Chemical Defence) was taught in the Oliphant Building.
All of my instructors where actually at Maralinga and Montebello during the tests. All gone. All died, mostly before 60, some as young as 50. Yeah, it makes a big mess in so many ways. During the 50's, the French were testing in North Africa. Underground tests, a bomb got stuck half way down. They couldn't get it up or down, so they poured concrete in the hole and blew it anyway. Almost 1,000 people, boffins, foriegn legion guards, the lot, and half of the Jebel Mountains just blown away. Still hot today. During the 60's, the yanks lost a nuclear sub, somewhere near the Bermuda Triangle, never have found it. During the 80's or early 90's the US Navy did a fleet audit. They came up 1 Nuclear capable 4,000 ton destroyer short in the stocktake.

You tell me, where we can be safe, and free to eat burned dead animals, drink beer, and wake up unwell the next day, and I'll meet you there with my big esky.

Shorty.

[HangOver]

nuclear power = good
waste product = very bad

simple eh!

Nuclear waste is too dangerous and stays that way for a long time as has been mentioned. OK we can refine and bury what is left but it won't just go away. Fire it into the sun I say. hmmm just thought of that challenger exploding, that wouldn't be good full of nuclear waste would it.

I still don't see why we can't cover a few square k's with solar pannels in the out back somewhere. It's not as if we are short of land mass!

[Tank]

Tank, we had family friends worked at Mary K, Von Doussa. gone now. My old man worked in mining supplying NASA and the Aerospace industry. Ores for rocket bodies, for the Moon shots, etc. He died at 60.
Former Governor of SA. Sir Mark Oliphant was one of the physicists who put the bombs together, won the Nobel Peace Prize. In the Navy in the Early 70's, NBCD (Nuclear Biological and Chemical Defence) was taught in the Oliphant Building.
All of my instructors where actually at Maralinga and Montebello during the tests. All gone. All died, mostly before 60, some as young as 50. Yeah, it makes a big mess in so many ways. During the 50's, the French were testing in North Africa. Underground tests, a bomb got stuck half way down. They couldn't get it up or down, so they poured concrete in the hole and blew it anyway. Almost 1,000 people, boffins, foriegn legion guards, the lot, and half of the Jebel Mountains just blown away. Still hot today. During the 60's, the yanks lost a nuclear sub, somewhere near the Bermuda Triangle, never have found it. During the 80's or early 90's the US Navy did a fleet audit. They came up 1 Nuclear capable 4,000 ton destroyer short in the stocktake.

You tell me, where we can be safe, and free to eat burned dead animals, drink beer, and wake up unwell the next day, and I'll meet you there with my big esky.

Shorty.
Gee mate, you got me worried now, I tuned 60 on the 18 Feb. Anyway I got Prostate Cancer and listened to the Quacks who said Radiation was the way to go, so 7 weeks of Radiotherapy and the damage from the radiation is worse than the bloody cancer, been over 10 years now, if you end up with Prostate cancer, have it out, no bullsh!t Radiation, mine came back after 5 years and they cant operate on an irradiated Prostate, got me on some drugs and keeping it under control. I think the only place you can be safe nowadays is in your own head, things are bad enough, I hope the all seeing all knowing powers that be (who for f##K sake lost a 4000 tonne ship) will see commonsense and not pass on a nuclear waste legacy to our kin, Regards Frank.

[JDNSW]

....... When the Yanks were developing the Atomic bomb during the second world war, they knew that the explosion was caused by a chain reaction of the radioactive material used, WHAT THE BASTARDS DIDN'T KNOW was that the chain reaction they were inducing may have continued on and on and destroyed the entire world, YET THEY STILL WENT AHEAD AND DID IT, now that's what I call arrogance, they were willing to destroy a planet to develop the bomb, you gotta remeber NO ONE back then knew anything about nuclear chain reaction,........

Frank, your points would be a lot better made if you did not repeat stuff like this. While there were very few people knew anything about nuclear chain reactions in the early 1940s, to say no one knew about them is rubbish. Nuclear chain reactions are very difficult to start - you have to have a reaction that produces on average in excess of one neutron of suitable energy to induce the same energy in another nucleus, and for that nucleus to have an adequate capture cross section. This is very difficult to achieve, as was known in 1940 not only in Los Alamos but in Berlin. The only reason the atomic bomb was developed by the US not Germany was that Germany and Italy expelled nearly all their atomic scientists in the 1930s (and caused the flight of others from occupied territories) - people like Enrico Fermi (designed the first nuclear reactor), Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Otto Hahn, and dozens of others, all of whom gathered in Los Alamos as the result of a petition led by Einstein to the US president to develop the bomb before Germany did. (There is some suggestion that the German atomic scientists did not try very hard because they did not support the government, but evidence for this is hard to find, possibly because not supporting the government was unhealthy in Nazi Germany).

There was never any possibility of a chain reaction that would have "destroyed the whole world" and everyone in the US at the time that understood the physics knew that. Of course, as with anything technical, the politicians did not understand the physics - but they did trust the advice of people who did - like Einstein, who (unlike most other nuclear scientists in the 1940s) was already famous - even the politicians knew who he was.

John

[JDNSW]

.......

I still don't see why we can't cover a few square k's with solar pannels in the out back somewhere. It's not as if we are short of land mass!

No reason at all - and I think this is one of the things we can and probably will do, although not in the way you suggest - see my post above. There are two problems with it - one, it does not supply base load power, as it only works when the sun is shining, and there is still no feasible way of storing it, and two, it is one of the most expensive forms of power - and I remind you that most of my power is from solar panels.

One of the reasons I don't think we will see many square kilometres of solar panels is the NIMBY syndrome - look at the fuss about wind power turbines, and imagine how both locals and city based greenies are going to feel about desecrating large areas of native vegetation and wildlife with a black patch several kilometres across. It is also likely that these would cause local weather disturbances.

John

[moose]

Moose did you check them all out or did you just Copy and Paste, Regards Frank.

I went a had a quick look, and still can't find the spot where you quote your sources:confused:

[Stepho_62]

My thoughts!

Mankind is in the eleventh hour of their presence on earth.

I doubt mankind will ever make 12:01

Global warming is now very real and the science to underpin it is proven.

Our entire global economy is underpinned by a reliance on a finite resource, Fossil Fuels.

We passed peak oil production in the late 1990's

I doubt very much if in the next 150 years the global population will continue to grow without having some very dramatic effect on the climate and hence on the human race itself.

Exactly what is going to happen I don't know. I feel very sad for the future of the planet and our children and grandchildren.

I am going to try to minimise my footprint on the environment as much as possible.

I am going to attempt to set myself up to provide a safe haven for my children and grandchildren and to become self sufficient.

[vnx205]

So to sum up, yes there are some concerns over reactor safety.

If this country must go with NP, then we had better demand nothing but the best, and let the government know, we are watching.

I would like to believe that we could do what you suggest, but the cynic in me says that the world is now so much in control of the bean counters that we have no hope of building reactors that we can rely on to be safe.
I understand that Westinhouse's AP-600 and AP-1000 were specifically designed to reduce capital costs and thereby improve the bottom line. They significantly reduce the size and strength of the containment because the saving in concrete and steel made them cheaper to build. The design also reduces or eliminates a number of other safety features.
I think that in a world where profits and return to shareholders are the driving force, that we are more likely to see a design of reactor being built because it maximises profit, not because it offers the assurance of safety that you and I would like.
Some of the reports of breaches of safety procedures, cost cutting measures and consequent narrowly avoided disasters such as the Davis-Besse reactor in Toledo, Ohio in 2002 make me think that the safety level necessary for nuclear power to be acceptable is just not going to be achieved.

[Tank]

Frank, your points would be a lot better made if you did not repeat stuff like this. While there were very few people knew anything about nuclear chain reactions in the early 1940s, to say no one knew about them is rubbish. Nuclear chain reactions are very difficult to start - you have to have a reaction that produces on average in excess of one neutron of suitable energy to induce the same energy in another nucleus, and for that nucleus to have an adequate capture cross section. This is very difficult to achieve, as was known in 1940 not only in Los Alamos but in Berlin. The only reason the atomic bomb was developed by the US not Germany was that Germany and Italy expelled nearly all their atomic scientists in the 1930s (and caused the flight of others from occupied territories) - people like Enrico Fermi (designed the first nuclear reactor), Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Otto Hahn, and dozens of others, all of whom gathered in Los Alamos as the result of a petition led by Einstein to the US president to develop the bomb before Germany did. (There is some suggestion that the German atomic scientists did not try very hard because they did not support the government, but evidence for this is hard to find, possibly because not supporting the government was unhealthy in Nazi Germany).

There was never any possibility of a chain reaction that would have "destroyed the whole world" and everyone in the US at the time that understood the physics knew that. Of course, as with anything technical, the politicians did not understand the physics - but they did trust the advice of people who did - like Einstein, who (unlike most other nuclear scientists in the 1940s) was already famous - even the politicians knew who he was.

John
John, the statement about not knowing about whether the chain reaction might continue on and on was made by Oppenheimer some of the European Scientists threatened to resign because at that time it was impossible to predict what EXACTLY was going to happen, so if the statement is rubbish it was the man in charge of developing the bomb that said it, not me, Regards Frank.

[loanrangie]

I voted yes as i believe with all the technology we have now/ future surely we must be able to neutralise the spent radioactive waste and render it almost harmless .One question i have is is Uranium / Plutonium dangerous in the state it is mined or only after processing, surely we can reverse it ?

[p38arover]

Exactly what is going to happen I don't know. I feel very sad for the future of the planet and our children and grandchildren.

I am going to try to minimise my footprint on the environment as much as possible.

I am going to attempt to set myself up to provide a safe haven for my children and grandchildren and to become self sufficient.

Me? I'm not worried. I don't have grandchildren. My kids will have to do the best they can. I won't be around to worry about it.

Ron

[JDNSW]

I voted yes as i believe with all the technology we have now/ future surely we must be able to neutralise the spent radioactive waste and render it almost harmless .One question i have is is Uranium / Plutonium dangerous in the state it is mined or only after processing, surely we can reverse it ?

1. Uranium as mined is mildly radioactive and while not totally safe (what is?) is not particularly dangerous, certainly no more so than many common household chemicals.

2. Plutonium does not occur naturally, and is very dangerous even in small quantities - it is quite radioactive and readily absorbed into the body. The lethal dose is very small.

3. Reversing it is not even possible in theory.

Neutralising radioactive waste is not possible. It consists of a wide range of isotopes some of them very radioactive, some less so. The only thing that can be done with it is to contain it, preferably after separating it into useful and non-useful components. To do this safely means keeping the waste until the level of radioactivity has declined enough for it to be reasonably safe to do so, usually a decade or two.

But by far the majority of the "radioactive waste" is very slightly radioactive items that have been contaminated by contact with radioactive materials. This would include mainly protective clothing and tools and equipment.

Hope this helps.

John

[drivesafe]

John, the statement about not knowing about whether the chain reaction might continue on and on was made by Oppenheimer some of the European Scientists threatened to resign because at that time it was impossible to predict what EXACTLY was going to happen, so if the statement is rubbish it was the man in charge of developing the bomb that said it, not me, Regards Frank.

Hi tank, although I agree whole heartedly with most of your posts, JDNSW is right on the money about the first A bomb test.

The story about not knowing if the chain reaction would just continue on and on until it destroyed the world is actually Hollywood hype for the benefit of adding drama to the original movie.

They had already carried out extensive test on a controlled pile reaction in New York way before they started work on the first bomb. BTW the name of the A bomb development, “ The Manhattan Project “ was a spinoff of the name of the location where the original tests were carried out, New York.

The reason the scientists threatened to resign was in an attempt to stop the bomb being dropped on Japan.

Cheers.

[Mud_Bogger6]

I chose to look at both sides of the issue,

Pros:Cleaner
Cons:toxic waste
Pros:Less pollution, Efficient
Cons:Chenobal(?)Meltdown if the radioactive core

[RobHay]

so PLEASE take the time to investigate Nuclear and the alternatives, as it is abundantly clear that little thought has gone into these posts, Regards Frank.


Oh ....I am not so sure about that.

It has taken nature millions of years to place the coal and oil in the earth and we are digging and pumping it out faster than it can be replaced. Unless we start to conserve our resources, in the not too distant future, and I mean in our lifetime, we are not going to have any left.

Think of the consequence of that.

Okay...cars can be made to run on electric power, planes can not, ships have moved around the globe before with out a propulsion system, but will take forever.

Yes we will survive....but it is going to take a major change in lifestyle.

I grew up with out electric power. Kero lamps, carbite lights and a water cooled safe for keeping butter, milk and meat cool, not frozen.

But no oil means no kero......We were probably a lot healthier and better read than the kids of to-day.

Coal and oil fired power stations are very inefficient, very wasteful. I believe we should be preserving our stocks whilst we still have them instead of selling it all to Japan and China.

We are going to need electric power and lots of it, days are getting hotter, more air cons are running........so where is the power going to come from, Wind, Solar and Wave generated power is limited by the nature of its operation......sure they can help. Lived for years on a property with a Windmill driven generator, charged the banks and banks of batteries to give a very limited supply of 32 volt power at night.


I have thought long and hard on this one and I also believe that a lot of other people have too, and this means nuclear power. Very efficient and cheap to produce once the initial outlay for the construction is discounted.

Waste produced...well only small compared to that produced by coal and oil......and there certainly is a market for it problem is a small amount goes such a long way....but given mankinds ability to overcome problems I would venture to say we will develop methods for the disposal that is safe eventually...short of shooting it all into space.

I am all for Nuclear power, do some reserch into oil and coal remaining stocks and start worrying now cos our kids are going to have a very bleak future unless we take action.

Thats my rant over with.:eek:

[RobHay]

Here one more point of interest, there is a power source that is available almost everywhere on earth that could be producing electricity tomorrow but for some unknown reason ( to me ) is used very little and thats Thermal heat from the earth’s core, why not.

Cheers.

We help the earth to cool alot more rapidly than what it is doing now, once the core is cool and solidified, we are dead in the water....have to go find another planet to polute.

[vnx205]

2. Plutonium does not occur naturally, and is very dangerous even in small quantities - it is quite radioactive and readily absorbed into the body. The lethal dose is very small.

In fact a carcinogenic dose is 1 millionth of a gram and it has a half life of 24,400 years.
1,500 tons of plutonium has already been produced by civilian nuclear power plants and that doesn't include military plutonium.
RobHay says only a small amount of waste is produced compared with coal and oil, but if you add up the number of carcinogenic doses in 1,500 tons, it begins to look like quite a bit of very dangerous waste.
Some people try to suggest that we have to choose between global warming or nuclear power. Such a gross oversimplification is either the result of a lack of understanding of the full picture or else is downright dishonest.

[RobHay]

Lithgow, there is enough coal in Australia alone to supply the World's needs for thousands of years. Wood if managed properly and not mined like it is now is another alternative, Wood powered power stations and Sustainable Plantation wood supplies burnt in wood gasifier turbines are a viable alternative and add another form of income for the beleagured farming community, instead of wasting up to 12 million tonnes of wood in the worst pollution device in the world, the humble Domestic Wood Heater (DWH), 1 DWH emits more pollution in 1 x 24 hour period than a modern car does in 12 months and its emissions are 12 times more Carcinogenic than the same volume of Tobacco smoke, how many of you have a DWH, do your bit and stop polluting and poisoning yourself and your neighbours, get rid of it, a Coal fired power station per unit of heat is 10 times less polluting, that's my rave, Regards Frank.

Frank, I would respectfully suggest you go and do some homework.....Australia does not have 1000s of years supply of coal left in the ground.....and certainly not enough to supply the world's demands for that period of time. Why do you think we have a petrol problem for....because there is only a finite supply...and commodities that are scarce attract a high price......oil is running out.....coal is running out....pretty soon petrol cars will be banned and we will all be driving diesels running on peanut oil or similar.

The world has a crissis. We are in the state we are in because of wood and carbon fired industrial plant. We do not want to add to the problem.

The time to take action was probably 30 years ago and we still have done nothing.

[vnx205]

I am all for Nuclear power, do some research into oil and coal remaining stocks and start worrying now cos our kids are going to have a very bleak future unless we take action.
.:eek:
I think you are right that we should be worried about rapidly diminishing oil stocks, but very little electricity is generated using oil, about 2% in the US.
Your statement above reads to me (and I apologise in advance if I have misunderstood you) implies that nuclear power is the only way to save the planet.
It isn't.
It also seems to assume that we will continue to consume energy as wastefully as we do at present.
We don't have to.
Are you aware that a 2005 Rocky Mountains Institute study using industry and government data showed that globally, nuclear power was being outstripped by other decentralised low-carbon or no-carbon sources of electricity production? About one third comes from renewables (wind, biomass, solar) and about two thirds from co-generation which uses waste heat from industry.
Even though these decentralised sources have not attracted the subsidies the nuclear industry has enjoyed, by 2004 they provided three times the output and six times the capacity of nuclear power.
We need to do something to save the planet.
Nuclear power is not the way to do it.
It can be done with energy efficiencies, co-generation and renewables.

[drivesafe]

I have thought long and hard on this one and I also believe that a lot of other people have too, and this means nuclear power. Very efficient and cheap to produce once the initial outlay for the construction is discounted.


For the life of me, I don’t know where you all get that nuclear power is going to be cheaper.

Nuclear power is heaps dearer than coal power and Howard himself, has stated that nuclear power is going to cost the users, that’s you and me, 3 times what coal power costs.

So where do you get that nuclear power is cheaper.

Read the paper put out by the Australian government, on the potential use of nuclear power here in Australia.

Based on info from overseas use of nuclear power, it is NOT as efficient as coal fired power stations, will require huge amounts more of water per kilowatt of power produced compered to a coal fired power station and nuclear power stations release far more heat into the atmosphere than a conventional power station does and aren’t we supposed to be trying to REDUCE global warming?

As Tank has posted, try reading up on the subject because I have not seen one official statement that nuclear power is cheaper, quiet the reverse.

Cheers.

[RobHay]

here's the list of references quoted. Feel free to check up on them.
References

<LI id=_note-iea_pdf>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-iea_pdf_0) Key World Energy Statistics (http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/Textbase/nppdf/free/2006/key2006.pdf) (PDF). International Energy Agency (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_8). <LI id=_note-eia_s.1766>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-eia_s.1766_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-eia_s.1766_1) Impacts of Energy Research and Development With Analysis of Price-Anderson Act and Hydroelectic Relicensing (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/erd/nuclear.html). Nuclear Energy (Subtitle D, Section 1241). Energy Information Administration (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_8). <LI id=_note-npr20060501>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-npr20060501_0) Eleanor Beardsley (2006). France Presses Ahead with Nuclear Power (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php'storyId=5369610). NPR. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_8). <LI id=_note-0>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-0) Gross electricity generation, by fuel used in power-stations (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=sdi_cc&root=sdi_cc/sdi_cc/sdi_cc_ene/sdi_cc2300). Eurostat (2006). <LI id=_note-ieer>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-ieer_0) Makhijani, Arjun and Saleska, Scott (1996). The Nuclear Power Deception (http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html). Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Retrieved on -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/--). <LI id=_note-wna>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna_0) Nuclear Power in Russia (http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf45.html). World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-bbc17oct>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc17oct_0) On This Day: 17 October (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_3147000/3147145.stm). BBC News. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-cns-snc>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-cns-snc_0) Too Cheap to Meter? (http://www.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html). Canadian Nuclear Society (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-iaeapdf>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-iaeapdf_0) 50 Years of Nuclear Energy (http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC48/Documents/gc48inf-4_ftn3.pdf) (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-tbi>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-tbi_0) The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in the United States (http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm). Social Policy. The Brookings Institution (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-pbs>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-pbs_0) Dr. Charles Till. Nuclear Reaction: Why Do Americans Fear Nuclear Power? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html). Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-wmitnfc>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-wmitnfc_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-wmitnfc_1) c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-wmitnfc_2) Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html). Infomation and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-stanford-cohen>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-stanford-cohen_0) John McCarthy (2006). Facts From Choen and Others (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html). Progress and its Sustainability. Stanford. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-anpr>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-anpr_0) Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html). Infomation and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-thorium>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-thorium_0) Thorium (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-fusie-ongena>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-fusie-ongena_0) Ongena, J & Van Oost, G. Energy for Future Centuries (http://www.fusie-energie.nl/artikelen/ongena.pdf). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-uic-waste>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-uic-waste_0) Radioactive Waste Management (http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm). Uranium & Nuclear Power Information Centre (2002). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-wna-adne>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-adne_0) Accelerator-driven Nuclear Energy (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2003). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-bbc-iranstandoff>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-iranstandoff_0) Q&A: Iran Nuclear Stand-Off (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm). BBC News (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-09 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9). <LI id=_note-1>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-1) Baker, Peter; Linzer, Dafna. "Nuclear Energy Plan Would Use Spent Fuel (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502229.html)". Washington Post (2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-01-26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_26)). Retrieved on 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-01-31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_31). <LI id=_note-countryguardian>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-countryguardian_0) The Costs of Generating Electricity (http://www.countryguardian.net/generation_costs_report.pdf) (PDF). The Royal Academy of Engineering (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-teonp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-teonp_0) The Economics of Nuclear Power (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-mit>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-mit_0) The Future of Nuclear Power (http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/). Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2003). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-oko>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-oko_0) Uwe R. Fritsche (1997). Comparing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Costs of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life-Cycle Perspective (http://www.oeko.de/service/gemis/files/info/nuke_co2_en.pdf). Oko-Institut. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-2>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-2) Malcolm Grimston (December 2005). "The Importance of Politics to Nuclear New Build (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/sdp/Dec05nuclear.pdf#page=40)". Royal Institute of International Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institute_of_International_Affairs). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_17). <LI id=_note-3>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-3) Till Stenzel (September 2003). "What does it mean to keep the nuclear option open in the UK? (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/poste13.pdf#page=31)". Imperial College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_College). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_17). <LI id=_note-nustart>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nustart_0) NuStart Energy Picks Enercon for New Nuclear Power Plant License Applications for a GE ESBWR and a Westinghouse AP 1000 (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-11-2006/0004246911&EDATE=). PRNewswire (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-NRC_Information_Digest_2006-2007>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-NRC_Information_Digest_2006-2007_0) NUREG-1350 Vol. 18: NRC Information Digest 2006-2007 (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/) (PDF). Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2006). Retrieved on 2007-1-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php'title=2007-1-22&action=edit). <LI id=_note-wna-esaec>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-esaec_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-esaec_1) Energy Subsidies and External Costs (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-pbs-french>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-pbs-french_0) Jon Palfreman. Why the French Like Nuclear Power (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html). Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-berkeley>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-berkeley_0) Xu Mi (1999). Chinese Fast Reactor Technology Development (http://tauon.nuc.berkeley.edu/asia/2000/XuMi.pdf). China Institute of Atomic Energy. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-eaops>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-eaops_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-eaops_1) Energy Analysis of Power Systems (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-oilendgame>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-oilendgame_0) Levins, Amory; Kyle Datta, Jonathan Koomey, Nathan Glasglow (2004). Winning the Oil Endgame (http://www.oilendgame.com/). Rocky Mountain Institute. ISBN 1881071103 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php'title=Special:Booksources&isbn=1881071103). <LI id=_note-wna-ree>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-ree_0) Renewable Energy and Electricity (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-energy.ca.gov>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-energy.ca.gov_0) 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005_energypolicy/index.html). Docket #04-IEP-1, et al. California Energy Commission (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-sonpr>^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-sonpr_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-sonpr_1) Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html). Infomation and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-usnrc-tmi>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-usnrc-tmi_0) Fact Sheet on the Accident at Three Mile Island (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nti-nwfu>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nti-nwfu_0) Vadim Nesvizhskiy (1999). Neutron Weapon from Underground (http://www.nti.org/db/nistraff/1999/19990670.htm). Research Library. Nuclear Threat Initiative. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-aa-ionsi>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-aa-ionsi_0) Infomation on Nuclear Smuggling Incidents (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Smuggling_details.shtml#4). Nuclear Almanac. Nuclear Threat Initiative. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-gu-wgus>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-gu-wgus_0) Amelia Gentleman and Ewen MacAskill (2001). Weapons-grade Uranium Seized (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,526856,00.html). Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-ag-trutiosftt>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-ag-trutiosftt_0) Pavel Simonov (2005). The Russian Uranium That is on Sale for the Terrorists (http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=328). Global Challenges Research. Axis. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-bbc-acodbt>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-acodbt_0) Action Call Over Dirty Bomb Threat (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2838743.stm). BBC News (2003). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-bbc-tgns>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-tgns_0) Thousands Guard Nuclear Shipment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4454932.stm). BBC News (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wna-tnfc>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wna-tnfc_0) The Nuclear Fuel Cycle (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.html). Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-tbotas-dbdj>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-tbotas-dbdj_0) Lewis Z Kock (2004). Dirty Bomber? Dirty Justice (http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=jf04koch). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nrc-copiiep>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nrc-copiiep_0) Consideration of Potassium Iodide in Emergency Planning (http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/emerg-preparedness/protect-public/potassium-iodide.html). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-truthout>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-truthout_0) Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18461) (HTML). TruthOut (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-03-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_17). <LI id=_note-illattgen>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-illattgen_0) Madigan, Glasgow File Suit for Radioactive Leaks at Braidwood Nuclear Plant (http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2006_03/20060316.html) (HTML). Illinois Attorney General (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-03-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_17). <LI id=_note-doe-about>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-doe-about_0) About DOE (http://www.energy.gov/about/index.htm). U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-wss-stsoet>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-wss-stsoet_0) Babur Habib et al (2006). Stemming the Spread of Enrichment Technology (http://www.princeton.edu/~rskemp/Stemming_the_Spread_of_Enrichment_Plants.pdf) (PDF). Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-npec-afeotpdolwr>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-npec-afeotpdolwr_0) Victor Galinsky, Marvin Miller & Harmon Hubbard (2004). A Fresh Examination of the Proliferation Dangers of Light Water Reactors (http://www.npec-web.org/Reports/Report041022%20LWR.pdf) (PDF). Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nwa-inwptb>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nwa-inwptb_0) The Beginning: 1944-1960 (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaOrigin.html). India's Nuclear Weapons Program. Nuclear Weapon Archive (2001). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-fas-pnwac>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-fas-pnwac_0) Pakistan Nuclear Weapons — A Chronology (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/chron.htm). WMD Around the World. Federation of American Scientists (1998). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-fas-sanwp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-fas-sanwp_0) Nuclear Weapons Program (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/rsa/nuke/). WMD Around the World — South Africa. Federation of American Scientists (2000). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-aei-wur>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-aei-wur_0) James Jopf (2004). World Uranium Reserves (http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html). American Energy Independence. Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-nt-eeonp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-nt-eeonp_0) Environmental Effects of Nuclear Power (http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/environ1.htm). The Virtual Nuclear Tourist (2005). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-catf-dada>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-catf-dada_0) Dirty Air, Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants (http://www.catf.us/publications/view/24). Clean Air Task Force (2004). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-stormsmith>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-stormsmith_0) Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (2003). Nuclear Power — The Energy Balance (http://www.stormsmith.nl/). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10). <LI id=_note-bbc-nqffnp>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-bbc-nqffnp_0) 'No Quick Fix' From Nuclear Power (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4778344.stm). BBC News (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-11-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#_ref-4) Is nuclear the answer? (http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html). Sustainable Development Commission (2006). Retrieved on 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006)-12-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_22).
An entry to nuclear power through an educational discussion of reactors (http://www.chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-10.htm)
The Nuclear Energy Option (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html), online book by Bernard L. Cohen. Pro nuclear power. Emphasis on risk estimates of nuclear.
Oldberg, T. and R. Christensen (1995) "Erratic Measure," (http://www.ndt.net/article/v04n05/oldberg/oldberg.htm) NDE for the Energy Industry 1995, pp. 1-6, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY
Oldberg, T. (2005) "An Ethical Problem in the Statistics of Defect Detection Test Reliability," (http://www.ndt.net/article/v10n05/oldberg/oldberg.htm) Address to the Golden Gate Chapter of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing, March 10, 2005
Steve Thomas (2005), "The Economics of Nuclear Power: analysis of recent studies" (http://www.psiru.org/reports/2005-09-E-Nuclear.pdf), PSIRU, University of Greenwich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Greenwich), UK
Nuclear power information archives from ALSOS, the National Digital Science Library at Washington & Lee University. (http://alsos.wlu.edu/adv_rst.aspx?query=nuclear+power&selection=keyword&source=all&results=10)
Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance (http://www.stormsmith.nl/) A comprehensive yet controversial lifecycle assessment of nuclear power generation by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, update August 2005
Critical Hour: Three Mile Island, The Nuclear Legacy, And National Security (http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdf) Online book by Albert J. Fritsch, Arthur H. Purcell, and Mary Byrd Davis (2005), Updated edition (http://www.earthhealing.info/chupdate.html) June 2006


Okay...read all of that...now do you have any more.....still got 5 minutes left before I have to go to bed so I can get up in 7 minutes to go to work:D

[RobHay]

In fact a carcinogenic dose is 1 millionth of a gram and it has a half life of 24,400 years.
1,500 tons of plutonium has already been produced by civilian nuclear power plants and that doesn't include military plutonium.
RobHay says only a small amount of waste is produced compared with coal and oil, but if you add up the number of carcinogenic doses in 1,500 tons, it begins to look like quite a bit of very dangerous waste.
Some people try to suggest that we have to choose between global warming or nuclear power. Such a gross oversimplification is either the result of a lack of understanding of the full picture or else is downright dishonest.

I was just wondering how many lethal doses are contained within the gases we vent to atmoshere each day from "safe" coal and oil fired power stations.

NOTE TO SELF: Must do further research on our safe power.

[RobHay]

I think you are right that we should be worried about rapidly diminishing oil stocks, but very little electricity is generated using oil, about 2% in the US.
Your statement above reads to me (and I apologise in advance if I have misunderstood you) implies that nuclear power is the only way to save the planet.
It isn't.
It also seems to assume that we will continue to consume energy as wastefully as we do at present.
We don't have to.
Are you aware that a 2005 Rocky Mountains Institute study using industry and government data showed that globally, nuclear power was being outstripped by other decentralised low-carbon or no-carbon sources of electricity production? About one third comes from renewables (wind, biomass, solar) and about two thirds from co-generation which uses waste heat from industry.
Even though these decentralised sources have not attracted the subsidies the nuclear industry has enjoyed, by 2004 they provided three times the output and six times the capacity of nuclear power.
We need to do something to save the planet.
Nuclear power is not the way to do it.
It can be done with energy efficiencies, co-generation and renewables.

Apology accepted.:D

I am not advocating Nuclear power simply for the sake of it.

We have a problem..........Global warming, rapidly diminishing fossel fuels, increasing population etc.

Even if we all cut back in power consumption, then we are still left with the need to generate more as our population grows increasing the demand on power supplies. When I left PNG in 1990 the population was 4 million, now it has risen to 6 million, I have not checked India or China but could guess that they have increase their population by that each year.

When I started school we had a population of 7 million, when I finished school it had risen to 14 million, it now stands around the 20 million mark, certainly has slowed over the past few years, which has the Government worried, hence the baby bonus to encourage the production of more babies to offset our aging population.

For decades we have relied on fossel fuels to generate electricity, as has industry in the production of plant and equipment, food stuffs etc with the result that we have seriously upset the balance of the eco-system we all live in. FACT, The world is getting warmer. FACT. Polar ice caps/glaciers are melting. FACT. World population is spiraling out of control.

What do we do? I am not sure, I certainly do not have the answers, if I did I would be running the joint :twisted: .

I do know that what i have read and seen for myself in relation to global warming, melting of the ice and subsequent rise in sea levels has scared the pants off of me. I can show you where an Island once was, Oh its still there..... only its under water now.

What I do know is we have to break ourselves of this habit of relying on fossel fuels and the subsequent release of carbon and other pollutents into the atmoshere. If we give the earth a break, she will heal herself.( Hopefully)

Electricity and the reliance on it is here to stay, and the demand will grow given that the population will grow.

All other eco-friendly methods of generation are really only stop gap and certainly the infrastructure required to generate anywhere near what is required would be enormous. Renewables would only add to our problem and besides I rather suspect could not be sustained. Takes 15 - 25 years to grow a tree to the size and quality needed to be consumed in the furnace in ....20 minutes. Other methods rely upon burning something to create heat, to create steam to dive turbines....its this burning we have to eliminate.......its burning things that is causing the problem.

I am not a great believer in thermo generated power. I think if we start sucking heat from the earth's core, we are going to finish up with even greater problems....I read on this forum... that such a plant in Swissland resulted in an increase in earthquakes.....this could have the potential to be earthshattering (no pun intended).

So what do we do........the lesser of all the evils...to my mind...is go nuclear......someone wrote here that since the nuclear age started we have generated 1500 ton of waste........how many tons of polutents have we pumped into the atmoshere from burning fossel fuels ? Got to be more than that. I have an airconditioner outside and if I was to go out and release the gas in it I would put the equivalent of 40 tons of carbon into the atmosphere...according to the tech. who installed it. So 1500 tons of waste that can be controlled is very minimal in the scheme of things.

This is obviously going to be a very emotional subject and I will add no more after this post.

But we need to start to consider what to replace our present system with because what we have at the moment is destroying our home.

[Stepho_62]

Here one more point of interest, there is a power source that is available almost everywhere on earth that could be producing electricity tomorrow but for some unknown reason ( to me ) is used very little and thats Thermal heat from the earth’s core, why not.

Cheers.

Because of this,

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Geothermal_project_shakes_Basel_again.html'siteSec t=105&sid=7407138&cKey=1168251552000

When are we ever going to learn??? Take no more than you need, Leave it as you find it.

[JDNSW]

...............

It has taken nature millions of years to place the coal and oil in the earth and we are digging and pumping it out faster than it can be replaced. Unless we start to conserve our resources, in the not too distant future, and I mean in our lifetime, we are not going to have any left.
..........

See my comments above about reserves - there is no prospect of a coal shortage. There is some evidence to support the prospect of a real oil shortage by analysing discovery rates, but the methodology suffers from the problem that a lot of the numbers going into it are suspect.

In any case, the way things work, we will not "run out". Once demand exceeds supply (and we are a fair way from that), what happens is twofold - prices go up, and buyers start finding ways to use less. Again, the effect of increase in prices on available commodity is twofold - as soon as the price goes up, the reserves increase because more money can be spent on producing each barrel or tonne (in a typical oil field only 10-50% of the oil in place is recoverable - but the actual figure is very price dependent); and more is found because it is worth more so more money is spent on exploration. And note that since the proportion of the price going to the producer is small (in most places most of it is tax - up to 90% or even higher in some places, typically around 70% in Australia) there is a lot of scope for this effect to increase dramatically.

In summary - it won't run out, ever! It just gradually gets more expensive, eventually to where it is rarely used.

John

[Stepho_62]

Such a gross oversimplification is either the result of a lack of understanding of the full picture or else is downright dishonest.

I'd settle for the latter on this one.

[JDNSW]

We help the earth to cool alot more rapidly than what it is doing now, once the core is cool and solidified, we are dead in the water....have to go find another planet to polute.

It was established about 100 years ago that the central heat of the earth is sustained by radioactivity, and is not a result of the heat of formation of the earth. It is inconceivable that anything we do with geothermal will affect the rate of cooling - the deepest hole man has ever dug or drilled is way under 1% of the earth's radius, so even if we reduced the temperature worldwide at this depth to the surface temperature, the earth's heat loss would still be over 99% controlled by the rest of the crust and mantle and outer and inner core.

Surface temperature is hardly affected by the internal temperature of the earth - what we have to worry about is the sun and the atmosphere, not the interior of the earth. Even if the core was cool and solidified the only way we would know is by the lack of earthquakes and volcanoes. Eventually the continents would wear down and the oceans get shallower - ultimately the earth would be uniformly covered in water, but this would be a very slow process once the mountains had gone.

John

[Stepho_62]

Apology accepted.:D

I am not advocating Nuclear power simply for the sake of it.

We have a problem..........Global warming, rapidly diminishing fossel fuels, increasing population etc.

Even if we all cut back in power consumption, then we are still left with the need to generate more as our population grows increasing the demand on power supplies. When I left PNG in 1990 the population was 4 million, now it has risen to 6 million, I have not checked India or China but could guess that they have increase their population by that each year.

When I started school we had a population of 7 million, when I finished school it had risen to 14 million, it now stands around the 20 million mark, certainly has slowed over the past few years, which has the Government worried, hence the baby bonus to encourage the production of more babies to offset our aging population.

For decades we have relied on fossel fuels to generate electricity, as has industry in the production of plant and equipment, food stuffs etc with the result that we have seriously upset the balance of the eco-system we all live in. FACT, The world is getting warmer. FACT. Polar ice caps/glaciers are melting. FACT. World population is spiraling out of control.

What do we do? I am not sure, I certainly do not have the answers, if I did I would be running the joint :twisted: .

I do know that what i have read and seen for myself in relation to global warming, melting of the ice and subsequent rise in sea levels has scared the pants off of me. I can show you where an Island once was, Oh its still there..... only its under water now.

What I do know is we have to break ourselves of this habit of relying on fossel fuels and the subsequent release of carbon and other pollutents into the atmoshere. If we give the earth a break, she will heal herself.( Hopefully)

Electricity and the reliance on it is here to stay, and the demand will grow given that the population will grow.

All other eco-friendly methods of generation are really only stop gap and certainly the infrastructure required to generate anywhere near what is required would be enormous. Renewables would only add to our problem and besides I rather suspect could not be sustained. Takes 15 - 25 years to grow a tree to the size and quality needed to be consumed in the furnace in ....20 minutes. Other methods rely upon burning something to create heat, to create steam to dive turbines....its this burning we have to eliminate.......its burning things that is causing the problem.

I am not a great believer in thermo generated power. I think if we start sucking heat from the earth's core, we are going to finish up with even greater problems....I read on this forum... that such a plant in Swissland resulted in an increase in earthquakes.....this could have the potential to be earthshattering (no pun intended).

So what do we do........the lesser of all the evils...to my mind...is go nuclear......someone wrote here that since the nuclear age started we have generated 1500 ton of waste........how many tons of polutents have we pumped into the atmoshere from burning fossel fuels ? Got to be more than that. I have an airconditioner outside and if I was to go out and release the gas in it I would put the equivalent of 40 tons of carbon into the atmosphere...according to the tech. who installed it. So 1500 tons of waste that can be controlled is very minimal in the scheme of things.

This is obviously going to be a very emotional subject and I will add no more after this post.

But we need to start to consider what to replace our present system with because what we have at the moment is destroying our home.

Yes, yes, yes n yes! (Does that make me a"yes" man:o)

This is what I was trying to articulate in my first post which now reads like Goom n Gloom.

[drivesafe]

Because of this,

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Geothermal_project_shakes_Basel_again.html'siteSec t=105&sid=7407138&cKey=1168251552000

When are we ever going to learn??? Take no more than you need, Leave it as you find it.

Please, this is the results of tests carried out in one single location.

I take it then by your post we will never be able to use geothermal heat to produce electricity.

Boy are you about one hundred years behind the times.

A number of countries have been using geothermal heat for many many years and New Zealand is planning to expand their operations even further so you better let them know they are going to cause an earthquake by doing so, oh that’s right, they already had earthquakes BEFORE they started using the geothermal power.

Oops there goes your theory.

Geothermal electricity production is not readily available to many places at this time, but most definitely has the potential to provide large amounts of pollution free power.

[Lionel]

I don't really want nuclear power, but it may need to be forced upon us.

The geothermal idea is very interesting, and is probably the ultimate answer to our energy problems.

Some of the comments on this topic seem to imply that the earth's core is cooling, but this is not necessarily the case. When I studied earth sciences in my student days, it was fascinating to read some of the work that has been done, which suggests that the earth could be heating up from the inside!

Maybe we are only looking at half the global warming problem!

While I agree that we need to reduce CO2 emissions, it is very likely not the complete cause of global warming. There are so many periodic, climate-influencing things happening, such as solar particle emissions, that we are in the awful situation that, even if we spend billions in reducing CO2, we may find that it makes very little difference!

The other depressing thing is that whatever we do in Australia is insignificant. Until the US comes to its senses we will get nowhere, and China & India may have other ideas as well! All we will do is shoot ourselves in the foot, like we did with free trade in the 80's

The fact that it was only comparatively recently that the Australian states could agree on speed limits (partially!), makes it impossible that any agreement can be reached on where to place nuclear stations, or even large numbers of wave generators, or solar collectors. Look at wind farms - these are controversial enough. It will take major power shortages before people will come their senses on these matters. Meanwhile, the Greens continue to oppose everything, with obvious determination to return us to the Stone Age.

I remember arguing with a Green door-knocker before the last federal election about their obstructive attitude to power generation, and the best she could suggest was legislation to force industry to reduce energy consumption, plus carbon taxes (which I DO agree with). She seemed flabbergasted when I said that all the attack on industry would do would be to force them offshore to China, who couldn't give a rat's ar*e about global warming!

Until multi-national corporations accept the need to reduce CO2, then nothing will happen. Legislation will NOT fix the problem.

Cheers,

Lionel

[shorty943]

Lionell, there is a good point to ponder, in the theory that the core is heating up. In a post here a couple of days ago, I alluded to a theory I have been pondering for a few years now. The oil we pump from the ground now, is much deeper down than any water aquifer belt. That oil is also generally found in regions of little or limitted ground water.

Oil is used as a high temperature coolant, in many applications, because it has a higher stable boiling point, than plain old water. Suzuki Moter Company sold a Rotary engined motorcycle the RE5, during the seventies, that ran so hot, it actually had an oil cooling jacket, close around the combustion chambers, and oil radiator, then, the more conventional water cooling jacket outside of that, with its own radiator.

I wonder if we have gone and unwittingly drained the Earth's core cooling system?:(

If we have, I think we may see little need for nuke or anything else if the Earth throws a leg out of bed. But, I am an optomist, and this is a fear factor five scenario.

And I agree absolutely, with your sentiments on legislation. What ever we do here, having been forced on us for what ever reasons, is nothing, nothing at all in the world picture. No tree hugging greeny myself, they bother me somewhat, but, my home is as green friendly as I can make it, short of actually turning off the electricity. All light globes are the new low watt flouro's, new eco friendly Infinity hot water, all greywater drains feed the orchard and garden plots. I even run my S3 on Bio-Premium ethanol blend. Little bugger is going like a rocket. But, if I am the only one, in God only knows how large an area, it makes no difference at all overall. If Australia is the only place in the region to make changes, then we have made none at all.

Shorty.

[moose]

if the Earth throws a leg out of bed.


We may need to pull her over to the side of the pan-galactic highway, and call the RACU:D

[shorty943]

Don't Panic.

[shorty943]

Morning NM, is that Professor Barbara (Freese), from CalTech? She, was my professor, in polution control and waste management, during my studies in Environmental Engineering, about 10 years ago.

Shorty.

[shorty943]

Probably is in Germany, sounds, or should I say, looks Germanic. Not the same one though. This one is in Adelaide Uni. Originally from California.

Shorty.

[vnx205]

Amory Lovins, "Nuclear Power: Economics and Climate-Protection Potential," Rocky Mountains Institute, September 11, 2005 reported that decentralised low-carbon and no-carbon sources of electricity are already producing more power globally than nuclear power plants without the subsidies that nuclear power depends on.
So why do people keep claiming we need nuclear?
The 2003 MIT study demonstrates that each 10 cents (US) spent to buy a single kWh of electricity could be used to generate 1.2 to 1.7 kWH of gas fired electricity or 2.2 to 6.5 kWh of co-generation from large industries.
So why do people perpetuate the myth that nuclear power is cheap? Even John Howard knows it is expensive.
The New Scientist, a well-respected scientific journal from the UK recently noted that although renewable electricity technologies are heavily criticised by the nuclear, coal and oil industies and by people influenced by the industry propoganda, the combination of wind power, tidal power, biomass, micro-hydro and others have made renewable ever more practical. Wind and biomass are already about as cheap as coal and a lot cheaper than nuclear.
The coal, oil and nuclear industries like to claim that renewables are not a practical solution yet renewables and co-generation are already producing more power globally than nuclear.
Why is it that some people are prepared to believe that science and technology will come up with some sort of miracle solution to the problem of waste from nuclear power stations, but dismiss the possibility of low-carbon and no-carbon forms of generation becoming more efficient? The fact is that in spite of the enormous funds spent trying to solve the problem of waste disposal, the nuclear industry has not made anywhere near the advances made in areas such as solar. Given the progress made in each area so far, I have more faith in the chances of continued progress in the development of renewables than in the chance of some progress actually being made in relation to waste disposal. In fact most renewables don't even need to make more progress; they are already working.
At the risk of repeating what I have said earlier, we need to solve the problem of global warming, but we don't need nuclear power to do it and there is even doubt about whether nuclear power could solve the problem.
Renewables and co-generation are already making a difference. Imagine the difference they could make if they attracted even a fraction of the subsidies the nuclear industry enjoys.

[shorty943]

She's a debate alright, isn't it. I can't help wondering who finances the Rocky Mountain Institute. I am somewhat skeptical with "university tests". These tests are all sponsored, financially supported, by someone or some corporation. Don't for one second think that the funding body will release results that do not tally with the way they want things to be seen, or done. university tests only prove what the financial backers want proven.

That is that blue dyed water gets into chalk.



So far, about the only viable alternative technology, seems to be Bio-mass. The Jappanese have turned big time to Bio-mass, in almost all new subdevelopment. All refuse is collected and sorted by councils. It is then either, recycled if possible, used as solid fuel in local power stations (small scale conventional) and any nasties, are dealt with in the latest "best practice" disposal methods, usually high temerature incineration. The main Adelaide refuse tip, is speccifically designed and built as a Bio-mass system, around every 3 months or so, a new methane burning Gas turbine system is installed on each new pit. With even the greenies carrying on about wind and solar farms blocking their view or some such nonsense. What the ? are we the muddled masses supposed to even understand. All I know is, I don't relish the prospect of a new dark age, because somebody doesn't like the ideas being put forward. Too many I don't like its, and not enough brain power being actually applied to solving the problem. It wasn't for nothing that I studied this very subject, but, it was because of the loud arguments against every idea being considered, and none of the vocalists had any ideas at all, that I quit. At the same time, proving to my professors, that industry and all the conveniences it gives us will just plain close down. Because to try to appease the greenies and "clean up industry" will make manufacturing so expensive as to render it unviable. Nobody could afford to buy anything, so nothing will be manufactured any more. The shareholder will run, rather than give up the 20% for every dollar they expect as some sort of God given right.

But, what the hell would I know. I'm just a simple old sailor, mate. Even drive a LandRover because they are simple.

Shorty.

[vnx205]

I am somewhat skeptical with "university tests".
Are you also skeptical about journals like The New Scientist?
I am pretty skeptical about a lot of things too. Sometimes we have to make judgements about the validity of information we are given based on such things as how well it is supported by other apparently reliable information and how likely it is that the source has a vested interest in presenting biased information. Peer review publications such as The Lancet and hundreds of other scientific journals probably have a better chance of being able to substantiate their claims. After all that is partly what peer review is for.

[shorty943]

New Scientist? Oh hell yeah! Question everything, even the questions, they may be misleading to. You know, the old trick question, no matter your answer, the question has already misconstrued it.
Just like J W Howards game with the constitutional referendum a few years back. The question, so carefully loaded, that no matter which way you answered, little Johnny Winston got only the answer he wanted.

Or is that being just toooo skeptical?:angel:

Shorty.

[DiscoTDI]

Unsure on this one, have not researched it to be honest:o

[JDNSW]

........ The oil we pump from the ground now, is much deeper down than any water aquifer belt. That oil is also generally found in regions of little or limitted ground water......




Totally incorrect! Most oil is produced from a reservoir which contains water below the oil, and the oil is pushed out of the ground by the water pressure. Oil is occasionally found in places with little ground water, but these are very rare. Throughout the crust porosity in the rocks is invariably filled with fluids, and almost everywhere this is water. In the rare places where this fill is hydrocarbons, and the porosity is adequate, you have an oil or gas field, but there is almost always water associated with it - the oil rarely if ever actually wets the grains of rock, these are usually wet with a film of water; and the oil, more often than not, carries water with it when it is produced. In fact, a major problem with oil production is what to do with the water - it is often salty.

Aquifers exist in most wells drilled for oil, and are common below the oil as well as above.

John

[rangieman]

i find it very hard to understand the % for compared to % against or the unsure vote
at leaste i voted im unsure , because i know little about it

we must have a few terrorist nuclear bomb experts amongst us:p
this is not directed at any one

[George130]

With even the greenies carrying on about wind and solar farms blocking their view or some such nonsense. What the ?
Shorty.

We voted Yes to a local wind turbine. I even hope it does go through. Would be nice to see more solar and wind to help relieve the system. I'm also hoping that the turbine means the lines round here will be more reliable.

[kowari]

I would say that it has to be a yes,
we are now in a dive with global warming and it is estimated that even with countries that have turned a blind eye (australia, the USA) getting onside it could take 50 years to eventually pull out of the dive.

that is not taking into account the Indians and chinese, who may well take a dim view of the rest of the world insisting that they put a brake on their industrialization, just when they can see the lifestyle of the west on the horizon.

So, every bit is going to help. If the 50 year thing is correct, some states will have to go to desalination plants as the place gets drier. Desalination plants use large ammounts of electricity I think! :(

[vnx205]

Am I right in thinking that the argument in a few of the posts in favour could be summarised as, "We have to do something about global warming therefore we have to accept nuclear power with all its faults"?
Isn't there a fair bit of evidence in the posts in this thread to cast doubt on whether nuclear power is cheap enough, clean enough and safe enough to do the job, especially when there are cheaper, cleaner, safer proven alternatives that are already making a significant contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases.
It suits some vested interests to perpetuate the myth that nuclear is the only answer, but I am not convinced that it is an answer at all let alone the only answer.

[vnx205]

I think I heard on the radio this morning that a nationwide survey showed about 40% in favour of nuclear power in Aust.
Does our 60% in favour make us an atypical group in more ways than just our choice of offroad transport?
I thought it was interesting that the level of support was lower in Vic and SA, the two most frequently mentioned locations for the reactor.

[Ace]

Christ is this a hot topic, you go away for a day or two and there are 14 more pages.

Its a controversial topic, however the only controversial part of it is the disposal of the waste, being a chemistry teacher i understand the problems and the life of such waste.

I agree with drivesafe though, why not harvest geothermal energy, this is one i overlooked. Sure solar is good for hot water systems and the like but to power every house in the country wouldnt be feasible, neither would wind. Yes coal works, but its dirty, each option has its limitations or downfalls so either way we are stuffed. Matt

[JDNSW]

As I said in my first post, I am unsure. One of the reasons I am unsure, is that as kowari has said, what Australia does will have virtually zero effect on global warming - Australia makes an insignificant contribution to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The only countries that really matter, are the US, China, and India, and perhaps the European union. Australia's biggest contribution to solving the problem is that it has a small population and growth is low by world standards.

For this reason I think it is pretty irrelevant whether we "go nuclear" or not, although I think we are unlikely to because of the pressure against it. But Australia will inevitably become an even more important supplier of uranium, simply because this is where it is.

John

[vnx205]

Christ is this a hot topic, you go away for a day or two and there are 14 more pages.

Its a controversial topic, however the only controversial part of it is the disposal of the waste, being a chemistry teacher i understand the problems and the life of such waste.

Your first comment is obviously spot on, but I disagree with your second point.
There is also controversy about whether the extra cost of nuclear is acceptable, how much CO2 is produced in all the processes involved, how safe some of the new designs and some of the old designs are, the cost of decommissioning a reactor, whether weapons proliferation is a problem and possible a couple of other issues.

[Zambian]

I may be wrong but isn't there an old nuke power station already in Aussie, somewhere outside Sydney.:(

[p38arover]

I may be wrong but isn't there an old nuke power station already in Aussie, somewhere outside Sydney.:(

Research establishment at Lucas Heights (where my B-I-L worked).

Ron

[JDNSW]

I may be wrong but isn't there an old nuke power station already in Aussie, somewhere outside Sydney.:(

Not Power - its a research reactor used mainly for producing medical isotopes and for a variety of research and industrial projects. It does not produce any power. It was shut down recently, and is being replaced by a new research reactor.

John

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Not Power - its a research reactor used mainly for producing medical isotopes and for a variety of research and industrial projects.
John


Hey Bushie!

remember
"Friends of the Earth"

:p

[Ace]

Your first comment is obviously spot on, but I disagree with your second point.
There is also controversy about whether the extra cost of nuclear is acceptable, how much CO2 is produced in all the processes involved, how safe some of the new designs and some of the old designs are, the cost of decommissioning a reactor, whether weapons proliferation is a problem and possible a couple of other issues.

Fair point, i should have worded it differenlty, the most controversial part (as i see it) is the waste.

[dobbo]

Its a controversial topic, however the only controversial part of it is the disposal of the waste, being a chemistry teacher i understand the problems and the life of such waste.




As a chemistry teacher you'd probably be the person to ask, what is the life expectency of depleted Uranium rods?

[Dave110]

The time to take action was probably 30 years ago and we still have done nothing.

your right Rob if we had listened to "the great unwashed, the ratbag scientists, the radicals etc. 30 years ago we might not be in the predicament we are in now!

These were the days when wearing these badges on anti nuclear protests would get you photographed by ASIO and if that was done often enough investigated by special branch!

[dobbo]

your right Rob if we had listened to "the great unwashed, the ratbag scientists, the radicals etc. 30 years ago we might not be in the predicament we are in now!

These were the days when wearing these badges on anti nuclear protests would get you photographed by ASIO and if that was done often enough investigated by special branch!


Perhaps if the great unwashed, smelt a bit better then the general public would have listened to them instead of running a mile.

[vnx205]

It is beginning to look as if this debate has run its course. I don't think it is up to me to make that decision, but I wonder whether as the person who initiated this poll, grumpybastard also thinks it is time to follow this poll with a related one.

I would be curious to see the results of a poll that asked:

Did the AULRO debate change your mind about nuclear power?
Yes
No
Maybe


...or something like that.
What do you think?

[Quiggers]

vnx205: No, I'm still sitting on the fence.

I heard Dr Karl explain how to store nuclear waste and it sounded fair and resonable.

If electricity from nuclear will cost 5 to 10 times more than current, why bother.

I'm a firm believer in using our permanent nuclear source, the sun, it's just a matter of how to capture its output. I've seen a 'solar' plant in the Californian desert (full of mirrors) which apparently produced vast amounts of watts... and was not ugly, nor a blemish on the earth, or whatever, unlike the nuke plant on the coast south of Los Angeles.....

we should all have (where there is endless sun, like where i live) solar capturing devices.... no real need, then, for other 'electricity generating devices'

GQ

[vnx205]

It is beginning to look as if this debate has run its course. I don't think it is up to me to make that decision, but I wonder whether as the person who initiated this poll, grumpybastard also thinks it is time to follow this poll with a related one.

I would be curious to see the results of a poll that asked:

Did the AULRO debate change your mind about nuclear power?
Yes
No
Maybe


...or something like that.
What do you think?
Or it mighty be more informative (when the time comes) to ask:

Did the AULRO debate change your mind about nuclear power?
Yes - I now support
Yes - I now oppose
No change

Having made these suggestions, I notice people are still voting so I may be jumping the gun a bit.

Maybe a bit later.

[dobbo]

vnx205: No, I'm still sitting on the fence.

I heard Dr Karl explain how to store nuclear waste and it sounded fair and resonable.

If electricity from nuclear will cost 5 to 10 times more than current, why bother.

I'm a firm believer in using our permanent nuclear source, the sun, it's just a matter of how to capture its output. I've seen a 'solar' plant in the Californian desert (full of mirrors) which apparently produced vast amounts of watts... and was not ugly, nor a blemish on the earth, or whatever, unlike the nuke plant on the coast south of Los Angeles.....

we should all have (where there is endless sun, like where i live) solar capturing devices.... no real need, then, for other 'electricity generating devices'

GQ


There are solar farms in Australia, I know of at least one around Singleton, then there is the wind farms stattered around the country as well. The problem is the ongoing costs associated with such farms. Things like replacing panels every few years could get a tad pricy

[vnx205]

Did the AULRO debate change your mind about nuclear power?
Yes - I now support
Yes - I now oppose
No change

If we do move on to this as a follow-up poll at some stage, we will need an extra choice. It would need to be something like:

Did the AULRO debate change your mind about nuclear power?
Yes - I now support
Yes - I now oppose
Yes - now unsure
No change

I notice that in starting this thread, grumpybastard said, "I thought it makes for an interesting topic for debate."
Turned out to be a bit of an understatement didn't it.
I bet he didn't expect 129 votes, 172 responses and 1756 reads

[Jonno]

I am all for nuclear power. It's time we got rid of the filth that is coal. It might be a great way to power a steam engine but it's no good for creating power and the worlds already operating nuclear power stations have proved that ten fold. It's clean, efficient and it works. The same argument could be made of recycled water but hey, lets wait till we run out of water and coal produced power and then see how many people complain about NOT having it.

[drivesafe]

It's clean, efficient and it works. The same argument could be made of recycled water but hey, lets wait till we run out of water and coal produced power and then see how many people complain about NOT having it.

Got me mystified Jonno, it’s neither clean nor efficient as it needs far more water and heat because of it’s inherent inefficiencies.

Heat is a pollutant, so the they are not clean and this is only one of many pollutants associated with the nuclear industry.

It’s also ironic that you wave the threat of water shortages as a means to justify the use of nuclear power yet if we introduce them here in Australia, they are just going to add an even greater strain on our already dwindling water supplies.

NO, they are not clean, they are not efficient and we will be paying around three time the price for electricity generated from this crap, all for no other reason but to line the pockets of Howard’s mates.

Read all the info that’s available not just the bits that suite your interests.

Cheers

[Jamo]

We've got a wind farm here that is limited to producing only 22% of our power.

Albany to the west has a smaller windfarm that can produce 100% of their power.

Albany is on the same grid as Perth so extra capacity just goes up the grid.

We're on our own grid (about the geographical size of Tassie) that's ageing. If we cranked our windmills up, they would literally blow out the grid.

Why in 2007 we still have above ground electricity amazes me!

[drivesafe]

Why in 2007 we still have above ground electricity amazes me!

Not wrong there. Last night we spent blacked out for over 6 hours because the above ground grid got ripped up by a wind storm, so a big chuck of the Gold Coast’s Hinterland was without power.

NOT me though!

[JDNSW]

We've got a wind farm here that is limited to producing only 22% of our power.

Albany to the west has a smaller windfarm that can produce 100% of their power.

Albany is on the same grid as Perth so extra capacity just goes up the grid.

We're on our own grid (about the geographical size of Tassie) that's ageing. If we cranked our windmills up, they would literally blow out the grid.

Why in 2007 we still have above ground electricity amazes me!

Problem with wind power is it is only produced when the wind is blowing - in some areas this is a lot of the time, but nowhere I know of is it 100% reliable.

Why we have above ground distribution in 2007 is three fold :-
1. It is already there - replacing it is much more expensive than maintaining and repairing it.

2. Underground is much more expensive, depending on the subsurface, probably at least five times as much per kilometre for high power transmission, possibly a little less for local distribution. This is because of the costs of excavation, plus the fact that the cables need to have insulation, and this has to be high grade, especially for high power, high voltage lines, plus the conductor thickness has to be a lot greater as there is much less cooling underground.

3. Losses are much greater than for above ground, especially for high power lines, although this can be reduced at great expense by going to DC transmission. This is because the conductive earth round the cable acts like a shorted turn on a transformer - although insignificant for a kilometre or two, it adds up on longer distances.

John

[Graz]

We have a Federal Govt that:

1. Failed to answer the phone or read the briefings to know that they were wrong about children overboard.

2. Missed, for years, AWB corruption.

3. Invaded Iraq because Saddam was a) harbouring Al Qaeada and b) building nukes.

4. promised that no one would be worse off under 'work choices'

5. lied about interest rates.

6. As recently as last year had senior ministers questioning the science of global warming (that same science that is now the compelling argument to go nuclear all of a sudden).

We have state governments where:

1. Ministers are bought off and influenced by Brian Burke.
2. An incompetent doctor kills people in Bundaberg over an extended period - and then is allowed to leave the country.
3. They cannot make the trains run on time (how hard can it be - the old saying goes that even Mussolini could make the trains run on time in Itay 70 years ago!)

And some Australians apparently want to let these people regulate and monitor nuclear fuelled power plants? (which, if the news about Walker, Morgan et al is correct, will be run by their close mates and party financial supporters).

Good plan.:eek:

Two things better not discussed on a forum, Religion and politics. also keeping the emotion out of a debate keeps it relevant.

[vnx205]

I have just re-read all the posts in this thread - again. (Yes I know that means I obviously don't have enough important things to keep me busy and that I should get a life.):D
I am still left with the impression that on the pro-nuclear side we have:
Unsubstantiated statements that it is clean, efficient, cheap, safe and necessary.
On the anti-nuclear side there seems to be:
Fairly convincing evidence that it is not clean, only appears efficient if you measure the power output for the fuel added at the reactor, is expensive and is unnecessary because people have provided evidence of alternatives making a useful contribution.
Anyone else got the time to re-read every post to confirm or refute my impression?

[drivesafe]

A few more things that have not been discussed and have a bearing on a decision on whether we should use use nuclear power or not.

First, as nuclear power, according to the most optimistic proposals, is going to cost at least 3 times as much as our present power costs. This means people are going to be using more of their wages, earned from working, to cover these additional costs. Energy of varying forms is used to allow all of use to work. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to workout that this means more energy is required for us to be able to afford nuclear power, or we can just take a nose dive in our living standard.

Next, the cost of financing the construction of all the nuclear power plants and the associated infrastructure is going to place a massive draw on Australia’s investment capital. This will mean a lot of other employment potential developments will either be delayed or never take place at all.

Last but not least, a number of major employers in this country, are here because our power is relatively cheap. Many if not all of these jobs will go off shore and many thousands of associated jobs will just be lost.

How is this of any benefit to Australia as a whole.

Nuclear power is of NO ADVANTAGE to all but a few already very rich Australians.

Cheers

[moose]

A few points if I may:

Anything that is done to ensure we have power for the future is going to cost money, so that shouldn't even come into any arguement.

The major emission from nuclear power generation is non-radioactive water vapour.

Something has to be done, we can't just keep pumping ***** into the air from coal fired power stations.

[JDNSW]

........
First, as nuclear power, according to the most optimistic proposals, is going to cost at least 3 times as much as our present power costs. .........

Unfortunately the likliehood is that we do not really have the option of the status quo, which is what you are comparing nuclear to. The reason we have cheap power in this country is that we have abundant coal, located close to major population centres and easily mined. It seems we will have to do something else, to avoid discharging so much carbon dioxide. Whatever we do will greatly increase the cost of power, whether it be renewable energy (solar, wind, wave), carbon sequestration, or indeed nuclear.

As far as I can see at the moment, it is unlikely that nuclear will be the most cost effective - but the cost of ANY of the options is pretty rubbery, so it would be a brave man who could rule nuclear either in or out. Hence my position of "unsure"

John

[shorty943]

There is a lot of, I don't want to hear you, in this thread. Like JD writes, we will need the power capacity somehow, somewhere. As yet, no real viable option has been forwarded, yet every year the drain on capacity rises, with absolutely no new generation facilities built. Just what do some people want. Free electricity from non poluting free air? Never gonna happen. You want, you pay. Simple. Coal costs to get out of the ground, then it must be proccessed to make it usable in furnaces to boil water to make steam to turn turbine. 1 ton of coal, 1 ton of oil, or 1 ton of Uranium fuel rods. I KNOW, which will produce electricity for a hell of a lot longer, and so do you. There is the cost benefit. We also benefit from much lowered CO2 emmissions, we will see. We will see.
Trust me, I am no lover of the Nuke, that was my field in the services, but, we are not talking about a damn bomb design, but a strictly controlled furnace of enormous potential, to generate power. Ordinary old common or garden variety electricity.Bah humbug, I'm going outside to rub two sticks together. I'm going to eat burned dead animals.

Shorty.

I return bearing information.
Been googleing. check this Aussie site, from Melbourne. http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm It will make a mockery of all the emotive rubbish on costs for Nuclear Power Generation. Granted, the initial setup of the reactor and the containment units are high, and so they must be for our own safety. But, in the long run NPG is much cheaper in actual running costs.
Than any other form of generation. Any other. Period. And these figures also include all the costs of waste management, everything.

[grumpybastard]

Well what a thread this turned out to be! :eek:

As it turned out after posting this thread i have been flat-out with work and have only just read this in its entirety, it took me close to 2 hours! And even sparked a family debate as i read out loud snippets of peoples comments.

Interestingly i did feel a warm feeling inside as i read the posts, i have a great deal of admiration for everyone who posted there opinions.

When i originally posted this thread i thought to myself "well this could turn really ugly" and my inner voice replied "never mind that will be amusing if nothing else" But in reality there wasn't one post that i said to myself "ahhh what a tossa!"

For such a sensitive topic in such a non moderated discussion arena its amazing that something so well constructed could emerge without it turning into a slagging match.

As it was mentioned in a previous post 60% of Australians are against NP yet the poll here shows the opposite, this is obviously due to the demographics of the AULRO forums, but why? Are we as a group smarter/better informed than the average man on the street? If reading the threads in here is anything to go by i would have to say yes! If nothing else we sure as hell are a better disciplined bunch than the norm :)

Now i just wish someone could get the politicians to read this, maybe then they would stop treating us like children!

[vnx205]

Check this Aussie site, from Melbourne. http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
I did and surprise, surprise, the Uranium Information Centre comes out in favour of uranium.

[shorty943]

I did and surprise, surprise, the Uranium Information Centre comes out in favour of uranium.

Hear me sigh with exasperation.

Shorty.

[vnx205]

She's a debate alright, isn't it. I can't help wondering who finances the Rocky Mountain Institute. I am somewhat skeptical with "university tests". These tests are all sponsored, financially supported, by someone or some corporation. Don't for one second think that the funding body will release results that do not tally with the way they want things to be seen, or done. university tests only prove what the financial backers want proven.
Shorty.


New Scientist? Oh hell yeah! Question everything, even the questions, they may be misleading to. You know, the old trick question, no matter your answer, the question has already misconstrued it. Shorty.


Hear me sigh with exasperation.Shorty.

Shorty.

I thought you would approve of my natural skepticism.

Seriously though, I followed up on a couple of the reports referred to in your link and must admit I am now left wondering why so many apparently reputable sources refer to increased cost of nuclear generated electricity.
Perhaps part of the discrepancy come from the fact that some of the figures are pretty rubbery because the actual cost of waste disposal can only be estimated because the problem ahs not actually been solved.
A lot of things are not as simple as we would like them to be.

[drivesafe]

I did and surprise, surprise, the Uranium Information Centre comes out in favour of uranium.

That says it all.

I have not read the info in the link but I was surprised that, from what shorty943 has posted, that nuclear power is more economical in the long run because the yanks are continually saying that they are not likely to ever get the cost of producing electricity down to anywhere near what it cost to produce using other forms of energy.

As I have posted before, even the Australian governments paper on the proposal for setting up nuclear power in this country state that the cost is considerably high than is presently the case using other forms of energy.

As far as coal goes, Australia not only leads world in ways of making coal fired power station clean, not cleaner but CLEAN and the first trial CLEAN coal fired power station is about to start operations in the Hunter Valley and yes, the electricity from this CLEAN power station is going to be dearer but NOT 200% dearer like nuclear power will cost but just 20% dearer that a standard coal fired station and as a bonus for countries that by their coal from us, the technology for CLEAN coal fired power stations is going to be provided to them as an incentive to keep buying our coal.

Howard was at the commencement of work on this power station last year so how come we are not hearing more about it?

[shorty943]

Skepticism kept me alive in some nasty places Allan. It is healthy.
I am gladdened to read, you are now considering skepticism in the other direction. Also healthy. NBCD, was my deal in the Navy man, I've been to places with unpronounceable names, had to clean up some ugly stuff. That is why, I dread the thought, that some public servant permanant under secretary cloth head will re-interpret the rules, and screw things up. This debate is raging on every forum I visit. What jives me, is the total refusal of too many people to listen to the science and the true facts of Nuke power generation. Far too much fear filled deliberate mis-education, for a truly informed debate in most circles.
This is actually the only debate where the good old hide behind the internet abuse wars have not started.
Thank you Allan. Maybe we will meet around the traps one day and have a beer.

Shorty.

[vnx205]

That is why, I dread the thought, that some public servant permanant under secretary cloth head will re-interpret the rules, and screw things up.
Shorty.
I have a fear which I think is similar to yours.
If it was only about the science, things would be a lot more predictable.
If we could be confident that the decisions were based on the science, I think we would sleep better at night.
Unfortunately, politics and economics tend to raise their ugly heads.
I am one of those who firmly believes that we will never be safe until the last politician has been strangled with the entrails of the last economist.
I worry that corners will be cut to increase profits and benefit the shareholders.
There is already evidence that some of the recent near misses in the nuclear industry are the result of that sort of thinking.

[shorty943]

I have a fear which I think is similar to yours.
I am one of those who firmly believes that we will never be safe until the last politician has been strangled with the entrails of the last economist.


See, we are on the same wave length. I do have a darker view of our pollies and public servants though. You are too nice to them.
Tis my soapbox subject, our "Public SERVANTS". I truly believe we, the Australian public, can and do understand what law and legislation means, and we do not need some public servant type, who has promoted itself above it's station, to use the old time term, to enterpret the words for us. Rant over.

This reminds me of an old American Indian saying. Only when the last tree falls, only when the last river is poisoned, will mankind finally learn, that you can't eat gold. Money, money, money, PILF. A very old, derogatory term, for money, hence pilfering. to steal.

Shorty.

[vnx205]

A couple of people have commented on the fact that this debate has been robust, but civilised.
That is really quite an extraordinary thing and something of which we can all be very proud.
The potential for this debate to descend into something nasty was enormous.
For a start it is about a subject of great importance to most of us. We tend to defend our views vigorously because we believe that what we advocate is necessary for our future, the future of our children or even the future of the planet. No wonder we get a bit excited at times.
Another reason is that, as some people have apparently observed elsewhere it is so easy for people to hide behind the anonymity of the internet to launch a personal attack on someone. We have obviously avoided the temptation.
It is also remarkable because it is notoriously difficult to express yourself clearly when you have limited typing skills and are desparately trying to complete your response before half a dozen others appear ahead of yours and make yours irrelevant. It is so easy to type something that will be misinterpreted.
Finally it is a credit to our tolerance that we have managed to extend the debate so far and keep it civil, using what is often a very inefficient or incomplete method of communication. In face to face conversation, the extra clues we get from body language, tone of voice and numerous other things make it easy to realise that a comment that on the screen looks a bit abrupt or arrogant is really not something we should get upset about. We need to start with the assumption that everyone else is treating us and our opinions with the respect we think we deserve. We must have done that to avoid what apparently some other forums have been unable to avoid.
I must admit I am impressed by our achievement. Perhaps I should not have been surprised however. I have always taken it for granted that Land Rover drivers are rather special people. I think this confirms it.:)

[shorty943]

A couple of people have commented on the fact that this debate has been robust, but civilised.
That is really quite an extraordinary thing and something of which we can all be very proud.
I must admit I am impressed by our achievement. Perhaps I should not have been surprised however. I have always taken it for granted that Land Rover drivers are rather special people. I think this confirms it.:)

It takes a less easily influenced mind to ignore the hype, and PR blurb. That my friend, is why we own a sensible car, and wear sensible shoes. Just like Her Maj.
That dear lady, drives a Series model on the farm at Balmoral. Did you know that? The Queen herself, is a Landy Series owner driver. Just has to say something about the rest of us.

Cheers Allan.

Shorty.

[Tank]

Hi tank, although I agree whole heartedly with most of your posts, JDNSW is right on the money about the first A bomb test.

The story about not knowing if the chain reaction would just continue on and on until it destroyed the world is actually Hollywood hype for the benefit of adding drama to the original movie.

They had already carried out extensive test on a controlled pile reaction in New York way before they started work on the first bomb. BTW the name of the A bomb development, “ The Manhattan Project “ was a spinoff of the name of the location where the original tests were carried out, New York.

The reason the scientists threatened to resign was in an attempt to stop the bomb being dropped on Japan.

Cheers.
I didn't see the movie you are alluding to, I read it in a book back in the 70's, either a National Geographic or Readers Digest, so I'm only quoting, Regards Frank.

[Tank]

There is a lot of, I don't want to hear you, in this thread. Like JD writes, we will need the power capacity somehow, somewhere. As yet, no real viable option has been forwarded, yet every year the drain on capacity rises, with absolutely no new generation facilities built. Just what do some people want. Free electricity from non poluting free air? Never gonna happen. You want, you pay. Simple. Coal costs to get out of the ground, then it must be proccessed to make it usable in furnaces to boil water to make steam to turn turbine. 1 ton of coal, 1 ton of oil, or 1 ton of Uranium fuel rods. I KNOW, which will produce electricity for a hell of a lot longer, and so do you. There is the cost benefit. We also benefit from much lowered CO2 emmissions, we will see. We will see.
Trust me, I am no lover of the Nuke, that was my field in the services, but, we are not talking about a damn bomb design, but a strictly controlled furnace of enormous potential, to generate power. Ordinary old common or garden variety electricity.Bah humbug, I'm going outside to rub two sticks together. I'm going to eat burned dead animals.

Shorty.

I return bearing information.
Been googleing. check this Aussie site, from Melbourne. http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm It will make a mockery of all the emotive rubbish on costs for Nuclear Power Generation. Granted, the initial setup of the reactor and the containment units are high, and so they must be for our own safety. But, in the long run NPG is much cheaper in actual running costs.
Than any other form of generation. Any other. Period. And these figures also include all the costs of waste management, everything.
1 tonne of uranium fuel for a reactor comes from 210 tonnes of ore, the processing and transport adds to CO2 emissions, 1 tonne of coal is 1 tonne of fuel, minimal processing and usually right on the doorstep of the power stations, not hundreds or thousands of miles from coastal based (water Supply demands coastal siting). There are pilot plants being operated on Clean Coal which has been treated to remove most of the nasties, because if you think any Australian government is going to scrap coal mining, then you are living in Fairyland, Regards Frank.

[JDNSW]

1 tonne of uranium fuel for a reactor comes from 210 tonnes of ore, the processing and transport adds to CO2 emissions, 1 tonne of coal is 1 tonne of fuel, minimal processing and usually right on the doorstep of the power stations, not hundreds or thousands of miles from coastal based (water Supply demands coastal siting). There are pilot plants being operated on Clean Coal which has been treated to remove most of the nasties, because if you think any Australian government is going to scrap coal mining, then you are living in Fairyland, Regards Frank.

The difference of course is that a nuclear power station has a daily consumption of uranium measured in kilograms, where the coal fired power station uses thousands of tonnes of coal a day. Coal fired power stations already clean up almost all their emissions except carbon dioxide and water. And the carbon dioxide is the problem. One of the things that annoys me is that every time there is a mention of air pollution from power stations on TV is there is the obligatory shot of steam rising from cooling towers - which, of course is not pollution. And carbon dioxide cannot be seen.

The mining damage caused by all the world's uranium mines since mining started is less than the damage caused by one open cut coal mine in a few days. A typical uranium mine produces a few tonnes of ore per day, a typical coal mine produces hundreds of tonnes of coal an hour plus thousands of tonnes of overburden shifted.

The scale of the materials (coal/uranium) is vastly different for the same amount of power, and the same applies to the energy used to transport and process it, even if the uranium needs more processing.

John

[drivesafe]

Coal fired power stations already clean up almost all their emissions except carbon dioxide and water. And the carbon dioxide is the problem.

Actually the water content of the steam is not a pollutant but the HEAT is and both coal and uranium power production produce heat but uranium not only produces far more heat but requires much more water to produce the same amount of power as coal can do.

CO2 emissions have a pollution life of less that 50 years after they are emitted form the power station while the waste from a nuclear power station is is unsafe to humans and the environment for at least 10,000 years, this much they know. What they still don’t know, is how to safely store this dangerous waste for more that a few years.

Furthermore it’s not the mining of uranium that is the most dangerous part of using this stuff, it’s uranium's use in power stations where the vast majority of all the accidents have occurred and I don’t remember hearing of any form of coal related accident that has made hundreds of thousands of square kilometres land uninhabitable for thousands of years It’s a shame the nuclear industry can say the same thing.

What’s even worst, no coal related accident and probably all coal related accidents combined have not killed as many people as Cherobyl has done.

As Tank has pointed out and is the main reason the stuff should be left in the ground, if we use uranium today, our children’s children for at least the next 500 generations are going to be left with the legacy of looking after the waste. That to me seems like an unbelievably selfish attitude to live by.

As it is now likely that in a very few years from now, and at a much low initial cost as well as a much lower cost to the consumer, the CO2 content of the waste from a coal fired power station is going to be a thing of the past.

This will make coal by far the safest way to go.

Cheers

[JDNSW]

1. Actually the water content of the steam is not a pollutant but the HEAT is and both coal and uranium power production produce heat but uranium not only produces far more heat but requires much more water to produce the same amount of power as coal can do.

2. CO2 emissions have a pollution life of less that 50 years after they are emitted form the power station while the waste from a nuclear power station is is unsafe to humans and the environment for at least 10,000 years, this much they know. What they still don’t know, is how to safely store this dangerous waste for more that a few years.

3. Furthermore it’s not the mining of uranium that is the most dangerous part of using this stuff, it’s uranium's use in power stations where the vast majority of all the accidents have occurred and I don’t remember hearing of any form of coal related accident that has made hundreds of thousands of square kilometres land uninhabitable for thousands of years It’s a shame the nuclear industry can say the same thing.

What’s even worst, no coal related accident and probably all coal related accidents combined have not killed as many people as Cherobyl has done.

As Tank has pointed out and is the main reason the stuff should be left in the ground, if we use uranium today, our children’s children for at least the next 500 generations are going to be left with the legacy of looking after the waste. That to me seems like an unbelievably selfish attitude to live by.

4. As it is now likely that in a very few years from now, and at a much low initial cost as well as a much lower cost to the consumer, the CO2 content of the waste from a coal fired power station is going to be a thing of the past.

This will make coal by far the safest way to go.

Cheers

1. I am at a loss to understand how nuclear power produces far more heat or uses far more water than coal. Both provide a source of heat used to generate steam which is used in a heat engine to provide rotary power that is used to drive an alternator. Both are essentially identical apart from the heat source, and both require either cooling towers or large volumes of cool water to maintain the heat difference that the Carnot cycle requires. The only difference is that the coal burning station operates at a higher temperature, resulting in slightly greater efficiency, and hence slightly less heat dumped into the environment - but of course, 90% of the power generated ends up as heat dumped in the environment anyway, so the difference in amount of heat to the environment overall is negligible.
2. The problem with CO2 is not the life of it (and this is not well understood!) but the sheer volume of it! At least nuclear waste is very small in volume.
3. My point about mining was in response to Tank's comments about mining.

There are more people killed every year in China alone than all the deaths that can be attributed to Chernobyl. While the Russian figures of less than 100 are almost certainly understated, some of the other figures are vastly overstated, being calculated as an estimate of the number of deaths that will eventually result from the known spread of radiation. But these estimates assume there is no safe threshold for exposure, ignoring the fact that we are all exposed to radiation from natural sources and have evolved to cope with it. If you are going to include these sort of figures from Chernobyl you have to include the equivalent figures from emission of K40 from coal fired power stations, and again, while these emissions are relatively small as a proportion of emissions, the overwhelming number of coal fired power stations and the volume of emissions from each more than makes up.

4. I think that carbon sequestration of coal fired power station emissions will eventually become feasible, and this is one of the main reasons why I am unsure about nuclear. But if you think it is going to be significantly cheaper than nuclear, you are kidding yourself. This is an area where I have a pretty good idea what is involved, and I have a reasonable idea of the sort of costs that will result.

To continue to produce CO2 emissions at the present rate will leave our children with a legacy of flooded cities and changed environment. Unfortunately, as I have commented earlier in this thread, what Australia does is pretty much irrelevant - the only countries that really matter are the US, China and India, possibly Europe.

John

[drivesafe]

Hi John, this is a research note put out by the Australian Government.

Makes for some interesting reading, both for and against.


http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2006-07/07rn12.pdf

[vnx205]

..... we are all exposed to radiation from natural sources and have evolved to cope with it.
John
Isn't part of the problem that some of the radioactive substances, such as plutonium, that are involved in the nuclear cycle are madmade? Since they don't occur naturally, life on earth has had no opportunity to evolve to cope with it.

[Vandermorph]

I dont really care

[Tank]

The difference of course is that a nuclear power station has a daily consumption of uranium measured in kilograms, where the coal fired power station uses thousands of tonnes of coal a day. Coal fired power stations already clean up almost all their emissions except carbon dioxide and water. And the carbon dioxide is the problem. One of the things that annoys me is that every time there is a mention of air pollution from power stations on TV is there is the obligatory shot of steam rising from cooling towers - which, of course is not pollution. And carbon dioxide cannot be seen.

The mining damage caused by all the world's uranium mines since mining started is less than the damage caused by one open cut coal mine in a few days. A typical uranium mine produces a few tonnes of ore per day, a typical coal mine produces hundreds of tonnes of coal an hour plus thousands of tonnes of overburden shifted.

The scale of the materials (coal/uranium) is vastly different for the same amount of power, and the same applies to the energy used to transport and process it, even if the uranium needs more processing.

John
John, the plant that I worked on at Mary Kathleen when it was recommissioned was capable of over 1000 tonnes of ore/day, I would imagine that it was probably actually processing less than that, it was a very Power intensive operation, Diesel for the explosives (Ammonia Sulphate and diesel), Diesel for the Loaders and 50 tonne Dump trucks and for the Cyclone which heated the yellow cake into Uranium Oxide, electricity for the crushing mills and sorters, conveyors and pumps.
if you look at Rum Jungle and Mary K you will see the devastation caused by the tailings dams, even after the Clean-ups, Regards Frank.

[Tank]

1. I am at a loss to understand how nuclear power produces far more heat or uses far more water than coal. Both provide a source of heat used to generate steam which is used in a heat engine to provide rotary power that is used to drive an alternator. Both are essentially identical apart from the heat source, and both require either cooling towers or large volumes of cool water to maintain the heat difference that the Carnot cycle requires. The only difference is that the coal burning station operates at a higher temperature, resulting in slightly greater efficiency, and hence slightly less heat dumped into the environment - but of course, 90% of the power generated ends up as heat dumped in the environment anyway, so the difference in amount of heat to the environment overall is negligible.
2. The problem with CO2 is not the life of it (and this is not well understood!) but the sheer volume of it! At least nuclear waste is very small in volume.
3. My point about mining was in response to Tank's comments about mining.

There are more people killed every year in China alone than all the deaths that can be attributed to Chernobyl. While the Russian figures of less than 100 are almost certainly understated, some of the other figures are vastly overstated, being calculated as an estimate of the number of deaths that will eventually result from the known spread of radiation. But these estimates assume there is no safe threshold for exposure, ignoring the fact that we are all exposed to radiation from natural sources and have evolved to cope with it. If you are going to include these sort of figures from Chernobyl you have to include the equivalent figures from emission of K40 from coal fired power stations, and again, while these emissions are relatively small as a proportion of emissions, the overwhelming number of coal fired power stations and the volume of emissions from each more than makes up.

4. I think that carbon sequestration of coal fired power station emissions will eventually become feasible, and this is one of the main reasons why I am unsure about nuclear. But if you think it is going to be significantly cheaper than nuclear, you are kidding yourself. This is an area where I have a pretty good idea what is involved, and I have a reasonable idea of the sort of costs that will result.

To continue to produce CO2 emissions at the present rate will leave our children with a legacy of flooded cities and changed environment. Unfortunately, as I have commented earlier in this thread, what Australia does is pretty much irrelevant - the only countries that really matter are the US, China and India, possibly Europe.

John
John, we are at the moment living and surviving with all the CO2 released to the atmosphere, that will change in the future and the effects will be devastating if nothing is done to reduce or stop CO2 production, one of the largest sources of CO2 is Methane from Cattle Farts and Belches, Methane in the atmosphere eventually becomes CO2.
But back to the waste issue, whether Co2 or Nuclear waste, as I said above humankind is surviving and are taking steps to remedy the problem, BUT if you took all of the waste from Nuclear Power generation from, say, France and introduced it into the earth's atmosphere, that would be the END of all LIFE on this planet, not something that can be adapted to or remedied, I cant see why the proposed money to be spent on Nuclear power cant be used to improve CO2 levels through new technology, like clean coal, Wind, Wave, Solar power, It makes sense to me, Regards Frank.

[Sharpie]

One thing people have been forgetting is the ongoing cost of storage and shipping of the used uranium.
If uranium is stored,it looks like it will be in the NT some where deep under groung in a concrete vault.
How much will it cost to build this vault?
How long will it last ? no one is saying.
But lets take a look quick at it. Lets say a structure like that would cost say about 10mil. (on the conservative side) and Serurity for the site 24/7 with about 12 people at say $700 p/w would cost $436 800 p/a.
Now lets look at transporting the spent fuel say from Brisbane.
For a return trip its about (shortest distance) 5000km. Shipping out by truck would cost about $6000.00 in fuel alone just for one trip if the truck makes 1 trip a week thats $312 000p/a. On fuel alone not taking into account the ongoing maintainance of this one vehicle it's starting to add up. Now i know your gonna say thats just bull, but if your going to agree to nuclear power you really have to look at all the costs not just the running cost of the plant, and don;t forgat these costs have to keep going for over 10000 years which is the half life of nuclear fuel.

[JDNSW]

John, the plant that I worked on at Mary Kathleen when it was recommissioned was capable of over 1000 tonnes of ore/day, I would imagine that it was probably actually processing less than that, it was a very Power intensive operation, Diesel for the explosives (Ammonia Sulphate and diesel), Diesel for the Loaders and 50 tonne Dump trucks and for the Cyclone which heated the yellow cake into Uranium Oxide, electricity for the crushing mills and sorters, conveyors and pumps.
if you look at Rum Jungle and Mary K you will see the devastation caused by the tailings dams, even after the Clean-ups, Regards Frank.

Yes, MKU is a large uranium mine, - but the fact remains that a typical coal mine produces of the order of thousand tonnes an hour - and ten to twenty times that of overburden. And you have to allow for the fuel (or power) used by the draglines, conveyors, trucks, trains, explosives etc for coal mining, and because the tonnages are 100 times greater than for nuclear, so are the transport costs. The devastation caused by tailings dams and so on exists regardless of what is being mined - and there is far more coal mined than uranium. And you get the same sort of thing from base metal mining, and there is far more of that than there is uranium mining.

But the devastation left by mining is negligible compared to that caused by cities!

John

[vnx205]

check this Aussie site, from Melbourne. http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm It will make a mockery of all the emotive rubbish on costs for Nuclear Power Generation.
I think I have the answer to part of the mystery about cost of coal versus nuclear or at least the discrepancy between what this site says and what so many other sources say.
I just noticed what was missing from the figures on this site.
Even though it is an Australian site, it doesn't include the cost of coal fired power in Australia. It seems to have concentrated on countries where coal is obviously more expensive than in Aus.

In fact there is a clue in the intro where it says:
Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
The relative costs of generating electricity from coal, gas and nuclear plants vary considerably depending on location. Coal is, and will probably remain, economically attractive in countries such as China, the USA and Australia with abundant and accessible domestic coal resources....

Bit easier to get the results you want if you select the right countries to include

[Frenchie]

Read a great sci-fi short story once where people in the future invented a time machine. They sent one person back to the 20th century who pretty quickly passed out, same with the second, and the third, until they worked out what was going on.

Our breathing response is triggered by build up of CO2 in the blood, not lack of oxygen. They had adapted to much higher levels of CO2 so when they arrived in the relatively clean air of the 20th century, they simply forgot to breathe.

Very clever I thought. (And this was written at least 20 yrs ago!)

[JDNSW]

..........Bit easier to get the results you want if you select the right countries to include..........

Unfortunately this is the problem with the nuclear debate (and a lot of other public discussions) - almost everyone picks the answer they want and then looks for the evidence/assumptions/published papers etc that gives the answer that they want -( apart from the ones who just invent their figures. )

In the Australian context this is made easier by the fact that there tend to be a lot more data available for countries with a larger population - but whether it applies here is often very doubtful, and even if it does, you rarely know that it does.

John

[Quiggers]

I have a purely innocent question re nuke power stations: I hear that Japan and France (and others) use nuke as the principal source of electricity generation, without apparent drama and have been doing so for many years...

I also read that many say that nuke is bad.

I understand the issue of spent nuke fuel and where to store it.

My question is: Given that several other countries have been using nuke fuel for maybe 30 years or more, where are they storing the spent nuke waste, how much stored waste exists and what is its actual and genuinely real danger?

I have no bias (short of an objection to paying lots more $$$ for my electricity) and have already stated my 'sitting on the fence' position.

I do not know this, what I've asked, and having read a bit about this form of power generation, the info is scant - apparently for 'security reasons'...

GQ

[JDNSW]

I have a purely innocent question re nuke power stations: I hear that Japan and France (and others) use nuke as the principal source of electricity generation, without apparent drama and have been doing so for many years...

I also read that many say that nuke is bad.

I understand the issue of spent nuke fuel and where to store it.

My question is: Given that several other countries have been using nuke fuel for maybe 30 years or more, where are they storing the spent nuke waste, how much stored waste exists and what is its actual and genuinely real danger?

I have no bias (short of an objection to paying lots more $$$ for my electricity) and have already stated my 'sitting on the fence' position.

I do not know this, what I've asked, and having read a bit about this form of power generation, the info is scant - apparently for 'security reasons'...

GQ

Partly, as you say, for security, it will be hard to find out any great detail.
When spent fuel rods are removed from a reactor, they are highly radioactive and producing a good deal of heat as a result. They are stored on site, cooled by water for several years until the radioactivity decreases to the extent that the material can be concentrated without getting too hot. It is then packed, usually into shielded drums, and transported in containers to a reprocessing facility where the chemical makeup is sorted out chemically to remove useful components and convert the material into chemically stable forms which are then encapsulated in concrete for long term storage.
As far as I know there is no waste in permanent long term storage, and this is all in "temporary" storage.

How dangerous is it? The rods directly from the reactor have to be handled by remote control and direct contact or even getting within a metre or so of them will cause local radiation burns and be rapidly fatal. The "cooled" rods are slightly less dangerous but when packed for transport are safe in the short term anywhere outside the container, although you probably wouldn't want to camp for long term on top of the container. The processed and packed processed material is relatively low in external radiation and almost impossible to get the radioactive material out of the packaging.

The radioactive waste itself contains a very wide range of elements with widely varying degrees of danger. The ones that are dangerous are the ones that are easily taken in to the body and retained by the body. A good example is Iodine. Because of this it is necessary to make sure it is retained in the rods until processed and then chemically bound into a stable insoluble form. On a slightly different scale are isotopes that are acutely poisonous such as plutonium (which is carefully removed from the processed material because it is valuable).

It is very difficult to steal radioactive material for terrorist purposes - even if the thief knows exactly what they are doing, they are likely to incur fatal radiation poisoning while taking it. - and they will be very easy to trace (as was demonstrated in the recent case of poisoning of a Russian emigre).

There have been a number of cases of accidental injury and death from radioactive waste. In all the cases I know of they have been a result of the improper disposal or theft of medical or industrial equipment containing radioactive materials. In this regard, the biggest danger is probably smoke detectors.

John

[Quiggers]

Thank you John.

I saw Dr Karl on telly a while back saying the way to store waste was dig a big hole about a kilometre deep and at this depth have large chambers, and as each chamber was stocked with waste (these are 200 litre type drums?) encase the chamber with concrete.

Sounded simple but I wonder if the packages would eventually leach radiation....

Why not pack it on rockets and send it to the sun?

GQ

[vnx205]

My question is: Given that several other countries have been using nuke fuel for maybe 30 years or more, where are they storing the spent nuke waste, how much stored waste exists and what is its actual and genuinely real danger?
GQ
JDNSW is right. All waste is currently in temporary storage.
A solution has not yet been found to the problem of safely storing high-level radioactive waste for up to 500,000 years.
Salt domes in Kansas were proposed in the 1970s, but abandoned. In 1982, Congress took responsibiltiy for the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and in 1987 designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the primary waste repository.
The fact that this carefully chosen site has yet to receive a single shipment of waste highlights the difficulty of providing safe storage.
There are several geological problems which I could outline in the unlikely event that you will want more detail.
Because of the geological problems, the Department of Energy shifted focus from geological storage to designing safe man-made containers, even though the guiding principle had always been "defense in depth"; that is, when the containers fail the geological environment should prevent further radiactive escape.
The DOE is ignoring the geological problems and putting its faith in C22, a nickel based alloy. However since the alloy has only been in existence for a few decades, they don't have reliable data about the long-term corrosion resistance. It isn't safe to extrapolate from a few decades to tens of thousands of years.
Getting a licence for Yucca from the EPA has been a long saga of lowering standards of what is considered acceptable exposure.
An indication of how important it is to devise a safe permanent repository, is that one spent fuel assemby contains ten times the amount of long-lived radiation as that released by the Hiroshima bomb. Yucca Mountain is supposed to store 140,000 of those assemblies.
The problem of safe storage is not an easy one to solve. If there was an easy solution, we would have found it by now.

[Tank]

JDNSW is right. All waste is currently in temporary storage.
A solution has not yet been found to the problem of safely storing high-level radioactive waste for up to 500,000 years.
Salt domes in Kansas were proposed in the 1970s, but abandoned. In 1982, Congress took responsibiltiy for the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and in 1987 designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the primary waste repository.
The fact that this carefully chosen site has yet to receive a single shipment of waste highlights the difficulty of providing safe storage.
There are several geological problems which I could outline in the unlikely event that you will want more detail.
Because of the geological problems, the Department of Energy shifted focus from geological storage to designing safe man-made containers, even though the guiding principle had always been "defense in depth"; that is, when the containers fail the geological environment should prevent further radiactive escape.
The DOE is ignoring the geological problems and putting its faith in C22, a nickel based alloy. However since the alloy has only been in existence for a few decades, they don't have reliable data about the long-term corrosion resistance. It isn't safe to extrapolate from a few decades to tens of thousands of years.
Getting a licence for Yucca from the EPA has been a long saga of lowering standards of what is considered acceptable exposure.
An indication of how important it is to devise a safe permanent repository, is that one spent fuel assemby contains ten times the amount of long-lived radiation as that released by the Hiroshima bomb. Yucca Mountain is supposed to store 140,000 of those assemblies.
The problem of safe storage is not an easy one to solve. If there was an easy solution, we would have found it by now.
Allan, on TV last night there was a news story about a real estate agent finding a box of Nuclear Waste in a box in a garage of a property he was managing, seems he went there to find the Tenant , who has done a midnight flit and left this Waste behind in the garage. Turns out that the errant tenant was some sort of Contractor for wasre removal, or something like that, well anyway this clown has left the country. The cops and the EPA were called and it seems to be medical nuclear waste, now the rub is the homeowner has to pay for the safe removal, treatment and storage, which is done overseas, the Bill for this small amount of waste is $200,000, pays to vet your tenants very carefully, wonder if he can negatively gear that.
Worst thing is though did this contractor take any of this waste with him, to maybe sell to a terrorist for a Dirty conventenial explosive bomb. Worse still why wasn't this waste found to be missing from wherever it was supposed to be, this makes a mockery of nuclear waste security in Australia, wonder if this might be the tip of the iceberg, Regards Frank.

[JDNSW]

Allan, on TV last night there was a news story about a real estate agent finding a box of Nuclear Waste in a box in a garage of a property he was managing, seems he went there to find the Tenant , who has done a midnight flit and left this Waste behind in the garage. Turns out that the errant tenant was some sort of Contractor for wasre removal, or something like that, well anyway this clown has left the country. The cops and the EPA were called and it seems to be medical nuclear waste, now the rub is the homeowner has to pay for the safe removal, treatment and storage, which is done overseas, the Bill for this small amount of waste is $200,000, pays to vet your tenants very carefully, wonder if he can negatively gear that.
Worst thing is though did this contractor take any of this waste with him, to maybe sell to a terrorist for a Dirty conventenial explosive bomb. Worse still why wasn't this waste found to be missing from wherever it was supposed to be, this makes a mockery of nuclear waste security in Australia, wonder if this might be the tip of the iceberg, Regards Frank.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to above, although I did not see your case. And it has exactly nothing to do with nuclear power generation. Very few people would like to see the end of nuclear medicine, yet currently this generates the largest radioactive waste problem in this country after smoke detectors. Although there is no real "final" solution to this problem, the number of people killed or injured, even slightly, by this waste is almost zero compared to other forms of toxic waste, which don't have the emotional word "nuclear" attached to them.

The problem is that because anything "nuclear" is regarded as so arcane, once a piece of nuclear medical equipment gets out of the hands of the experts (as when it is replaced by newer equipment) nobody else recognises what it is, and this is where the problems start.

John

[Brett67]

Sometimes the views of a "person" completely removed from the "local" debate can be quite interesting.

On one of those airline / airport tv programs about a month ago, there was an English couple travelling to the Ukraine to donate money and equipment to a kids hospital.

All the kids were around 8-13 years old and suffering from radiation induced illness - from Chernobyl in 1986.

Do the sums. Whatever your preference is for our future energy needs, this is something else to think about.

[Frenchie]

Why not pack it on rockets and send it to the sun?

GQ

That would be an ideal solution except that rockets occasionally crash. :eek:

[Tank]

This is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to above, although I did not see your case. And it has exactly nothing to do with nuclear power generation. Very few people would like to see the end of nuclear medicine, yet currently this generates the largest radioactive waste problem in this country after smoke detectors. Although there is no real "final" solution to this problem, the number of people killed or injured, even slightly, by this waste is almost zero compared to other forms of toxic waste, which don't have the emotional word "nuclear" attached to them.

The problem is that because anything "nuclear" is regarded as so arcane, once a piece of nuclear medical equipment gets out of the hands of the experts (as when it is replaced by newer equipment) nobody else recognises what it is, and this is where the problems start.

John
John, it was about the Security of Nuclear Waste (in all forms) and about the Massive cost of the Safe Storage of Nuclear Waste, most of which comes from Power Generation and that has everything to do with Nuclear Power and Waste Generation, which of course has to be paid for by we, the end-users, if it ever gets the go ahead, Regards Frank.

[Quiggers]

Is it possible to 'store' the nuke waste in liquid nitrogen, given the freezing point is soo low and by 'inertia' the activity of nuke particulate would be slowed or stopped as activity, particle activity wise?

radioactvity exists and is measured at sea level and at the common earth temp of 22º, if the store was a liquid nitrogen temp of -170º then the radioactive matter would have a difficult escape, being inert?

GQ

[JDNSW]

Is it possible to 'store' the nuke waste in liquid nitrogen, given the freezing point is soo low and by 'inertia' the activity of nuke particulate would be slowed or stopped as activity, particle activity wise?

radioactvity exists and is measured at sea level and at the common earth temp of 22º, if the store was a liquid nitrogen temp of -170º then the radioactive matter would have a difficult escape, being inert?

GQ

Temperature is a measure of the random motion of complete atoms, not the particles within the nucleus. Temperature has exactly zero effect on nuclear processes (until the velocity of motion of the nucleus gets high enough to initiate nuclear reactions, and we are talking millions of degrees). So the radiation remains the same even if at the temperature of liquid nitrogen, or for that matter at absolute zero. This is why radioactive dating works - it doesn't matter what the temperature does, unless it gets high enough to allow the radiation products to separate (melt, usually).

John

[Quiggers]

Okay,

thanks John.

GQ

[Disco300Tdi]

Temperature is a measure of the random motion of complete atoms, not the particles within the nucleus. Temperature has exactly zero effect on nuclear processes (until the velocity of motion of the nucleus gets high enough to initiate nuclear reactions, and we are talking millions of degrees). So the radiation remains the same even if at the temperature of liquid nitrogen, or for that matter at absolute zero. This is why radioactive dating works - it doesn't matter what the temperature does, unless it gets high enough to allow the radiation products to separate (melt, usually).

John

One of my greatest pastimes on this site is reading Johns' posts

He explains it so well

He reminds me of Mr Jones on Bob Dyers "Pick A Box"

[drivesafe]

Isn't this all irrelevant now that Howard has been caught out setting up the whole thing, which was nothing more than a scam to try and make three of his rich mates richer. :twisted:

Surprise, surprise.

[barney]

i couldn't be stuffed reading thru 11 pages, but in case it hasn't been pointed out before, i'm all for nuclear power...because it's nu and it's clear so the greenies should love that.
and if there is an accident, think of the mutant army we could build with laser eyes and multiple limbs that can shoot venom...awesome!

[Quiggers]

drivesafe: You surely don't mean our beloved 'dear leader' has done anything untoward in his compassion and respect for the common man of 'straya?

The three you mention would no doubt have the utmost agreeance with 'the old dessicated coconut, firmly araldited to his seat' (PJ Keating 03/07)

Just biding my time, he'll and his ilk will be gone before too long...

GQ

[drivesafe]

Just biding my time, he'll and his ilk will be gone before too long...

GQ

For Australia’s sake, let’s hope so :twisted: