Are we being conned about Global Warming part 2

[ivery819]

A few weeks ago member 'drivesafe ' asked the question "are we being conned about Global Warming ? "
Since then Senator Steve Fielding has had the opportunity to more closely examine the issues involved. He recently had a meeting with Senator Wong at which he put several relevant questions.
Senator Fielding holds a crucial vote on the proposed Emissions Trading Legislation. Fielding and four independent scientists faced the Minister for the Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, The Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett, and Professor Will Steffan, director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University.

Click here to read what happened from an eye witness (http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/19/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming/)

It's unlikely that any of this will be in the mainstream media.

[ADMIRAL]

I'm a cynical bugger when it come to climate change. I can't get over the feeling the debate has been hijacked, and the media are the main culprit. It is so fashionable to go 'green', and anyone disenting gets a public put down. I would like to see less emotional arguement, and more facts. ie. What is the real cost ( manufacturing to eventual disposal - recycling ) of the so called Hybrids. Compare that to a modern fuel efficient conventional vehicle. ......and if you want another one..how much does it cost to manufacture and instal a wind tower. Not looking forward to the day when we have electric 4WD's.

[moose]

Whilst I haven't got the patience to sit and read all that at this time of day, It would seem that maybe (just maybe) some politicians are starting to think about it, rather than get caught up in emotions. I do see reducing emissions as a good thing, but there needs to be some thought and scientific basis, rather than going to extremes (like threatening the boss of a power plant and his family)

[Newbs-IIA]

You think things are expensive now? You think your jobs are safe now?

Wait untill this climate change legislation passes... Lets all hope that it doesn't :(

[ivery819]

What is the real cost ( manufacturing to eventual disposal - recycling ) of the so called Hybrids. Compare that to a modern fuel efficient conventional vehicle. .

Try this........it's very detailed so it's long winded.

Dust to Dust vehicle carbon footprint analysis (CLICK HERE ) (http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/)

[moose]

On the topic of overall cost, I heard recently that jumbo jets are qute effective as far as cost per person, by the time you add in the cost of infrastructure, ie, cars/trucks/buses need roads, trains need rails, whereas planes need relatively small sections of tarmac to land and take-off.

[Chucaro]

On the topic of overall cost, I heard recently that jumbo jets are qute effective as far as cost per person, by the time you add in the cost of infrastructure, ie, cars/trucks/buses need roads, trains need rails, whereas planes need relatively small sections of tarmac to land and take-off.

I guess that all depends from where it is coming the info.
If you read THIS (http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-12-18-jet-pollution-usat_x.htm) then it is a different point of view.

At the end of the day any sacrifice in income or standard of living it is not popular so there are a lot of politicians that are not prepared to risk their position because the risk of something that only is going to affect future generations.

I as a grandfather and concern for their future and their children, I take this issue very serious and believe on the facts, we are loosing a lot on "components" in the ecosystem due to global warming and climate change and not body can deny this.

Cheers

[vnx205]

A few weeks ago member 'drivesafe ' asked the question "are we being conned about Global Warming ? "
Since then Senator Steve Fielding has had the opportunity to more closely examine the issues involved. He recently had a meeting with Senator Wong at which he put several relevant questions.
Senator Fielding holds a crucial vote on the proposed Emissions Trading Legislation. Fielding and four independent scientists faced the Minister for the Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, The Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett, and Professor Will Steffan, director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University.

Click here to read what happened from an eye witness (http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/19/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming/)

It's unlikely that any of this will be in the mainstream media.

Once again this claim about only the climate change argument getting media coverage while the skeptics are silenced is not born out by the facts.

The only newspaper coverage I have seen was written by a supporter of Fielding.

The article in the link is obviously written by a biased witness, so needs to to be read with some skepticism.

The emotive language used is a bit of a giveaway. The climate change scientists are described as "alarmist" and their arguments as"worthless" "rubbish". While Fielding apparently asked "sensible questions".

That may not make the account wrong, but it certainly makes it suspect.

[CraigE]

I think it is a very subjective topic. Obviously with some of the crap we are putting into the air there has to be some conequence and effect.
Wether it is to the exetent some would like us to believe is debatable.
I honestly think if there is a cleaner viable alternative, it should be taken an become standard practice.
A poor example of this is hybrid or green cars. While they have their merits and uses they are not practical for the majority.
Solar tecnologies should be common place in countries like Australia and other high sun exposed areas but are not, I reckon all houses built in Australia should have to have at last 1kw of solar power as mandatory. If there was high volume use cost should theoretically come down.
As I said I dont think there is total transperancy in the debate, but sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring cleaner tecnologies is not the answer either.

[87County]

I'm a cynical bugger when it come to climate change. I can't get over the feeling the debate has been hijacked, and the media are the main culprit. It is so fashionable to go 'green', and anyone disenting gets a public put down. I would like to see less emotional arguement, and more facts. ie. What is the real cost ( manufacturing to eventual disposal - recycling ) of the so called Hybrids. Compare that to a modern fuel efficient conventional vehicle. ......and if you want another one..how much does it cost to manufacture and instal a wind tower. Not looking forward to the day when we have electric 4WD's.

There is no doubt that debates do get "hijacked" by both vested interests and squeaky wheels, and this above quoted post points to the lack of debate/information regarding the overall (and probably understated) whole-of-life costs, both financial and environmental, for replacement "green" technology.

There appears to be no doubt that there has been a warming of the Earth's climate over the last century, which, over time has had both ice-ages and warmer times than at present.

Climate changes over over the last 20000 years have been very gradual but if you visit Lake Mungo for example, you can see that this place had a far more equable climate for man back then. The change over the last 100 yeasr seems to have been at a faster rate.

Mankind evolved in a period of benign environment as the Earth came out of the last real ice-age and this has allowed demands to be placed on the environment that have lead to unusally large species extinctions and thorough despoiling of the whole-Earth environment including the oceans.

I don’t think that having the local Council buy Prius’(s) and having us all install insulation batts is going to make one iota of difference. I also do not think that giving everbody a small sum of ca$h to send their existing car to the wreckers and get a discount on a new one is anything but an extra government subsidy for car dealers

It's not all bad news I know, but I agree that it is difficult or impossible to get a fair debate going under the "democratic" system and when one dilbert has the balance of power by virtue of an electoral anomoly the sooner he gets replaced by an intelligent thinker the better.

[willem]

I have said this before. The biggest polluters are heavy industry through power consumption. The only realistic energy source for large scale, base load power generation anywhere in the world is nuclear power. The sooner we get that, and the sooner we start to develop proper safe nuclear power stations, the sooner we will bring down carbon based pollution.

All the other options are either bit players, regionally suitable only (solar will never work in Belgium, for instance), or unable to provide reliable baseload electricity. Many are also environmental disasters. Have you ever thought of the visual pollution of enough wind farms to make even a relatively small contribution? Or the effect on wildlife and fauna of large scale solar power installations? Or of the effect on our coastlines of large scale wave generators? And you'd still have to supplement them with either coal or nuclear power stations!

The irony of it is, is that most of those making so much noise about greenhouse gas emissions don't want to see nuclear power!

Nuclear power is safe - nuclear weapons are not, but we're not talking about nuclear weapons. And super powers have nuclear weapons anyway, even while we are not having the benefit of nuclear power!

I say bring on nuclear power. And nuclear fuel recycling. Let us as human race put our minds to developing this abundant source of energy properly.

Willem

[87County]

I have said this before. The biggest polluters are heavy industry through power consumption. The only realistic energy source for large scale, base load power generation anywhere in the world is nuclear power. The sooner we get that, and the sooner we start to develop proper safe nuclear power stations, the sooner we will bring down carbon based pollution.

All the other options are either bit players, regionally suitable only (solar will never work in Belgium, for instance), or unable to provide reliable baseload electricity. Many are also environmental disasters. Have you ever thought of the visual pollution of enough wind farms to make even a relatively small contribution? Or the effect on wildlife and fauna of large scale solar power installations? Or of the effect on our coastlines of large scale wave generators? And you'd still have to supplement them with either coal or nuclear power stations!

The irony of it is, is that most of those making so much noise about greenhouse gas emissions don't want to see nuclear power!

Nuclear power is safe - nuclear weapons are not, but we're not talking about nuclear weapons. And super powers have nuclear weapons anyway, even while we are not having the benefit of nuclear power!

I say bring on nuclear power. And nuclear fuel recycling. Let us as human race put our minds to developing this abundant source of energy properly.

Willem

during the next 100 years we will hopefully see nuclear fusion perfected as a power source (non-polluting, unlimited source material, limited waste)

[drivesafe]

I have said this before. The biggest polluters are heavy industry through power consumption. The only realistic energy source for large scale, base load power generation anywhere in the world is nuclear power. The sooner we get that, and the sooner we start to develop proper safe nuclear power stations, the sooner we will bring down carbon based pollution.

All the other options are either bit players, regionally suitable only (solar will never work in Belgium, for instance), or unable to provide reliable baseload electricity. Many are also environmental disasters. Have you ever thought of the visual pollution of enough wind farms to make even a relatively small contribution? Or the effect on wildlife and fauna of large scale solar power installations? Or of the effect on our coastlines of large scale wave generators? And you'd still have to supplement them with either coal or nuclear power stations!

The irony of it is, is that most of those making so much noise about greenhouse gas emissions don't want to see nuclear power!

Nuclear power is safe - nuclear weapons are not, but we're not talking about nuclear weapons. And super powers have nuclear weapons anyway, even while we are not having the benefit of nuclear power!

I say bring on nuclear power. And nuclear fuel recycling. Let us as human race put our minds to developing this abundant source of energy properly.

Willem

I think this is a pretty good example of one persons opinion clouding the facts.

As far as the statement that “nuclear power is safe” I think is far from reality as this Accident list (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml) will confirm.

[Chenz]

I have said this before. The biggest polluters are heavy industry through power consumption. The only realistic energy source for large scale, base load power generation anywhere in the world is nuclear power. The sooner we get that, and the sooner we start to develop proper safe nuclear power stations, the sooner we will bring down carbon based pollution.

All the other options are either bit players, regionally suitable only (solar will never work in Belgium, for instance), or unable to provide reliable baseload electricity. Many are also environmental disasters. Have you ever thought of the visual pollution of enough wind farms to make even a relatively small contribution? Or the effect on wildlife and fauna of large scale solar power installations? Or of the effect on our coastlines of large scale wave generators? And you'd still have to supplement them with either coal or nuclear power stations!

The irony of it is, is that most of those making so much noise about greenhouse gas emissions don't want to see nuclear power!

Nuclear power is safe - nuclear weapons are not, but we're not talking about nuclear weapons. And super powers have nuclear weapons anyway, even while we are not having the benefit of nuclear power!

I say bring on nuclear power. And nuclear fuel recycling. Let us as human race put our minds to developing this abundant source of energy properly.

Willem

If "green power" is the way to go then why do the power companies charge more for this than coal produced power? I know it is cheaper to produce but if they gave people who had a grid connected solar array on their house a cheaper power bill tarrif then that would encourage others to put in grid connected solar.

Forget stand alone units. The technology with batteries is as yet not sustainable. Just the production of the batteries and their eventual disposal is more polluting than the coal fired alternative.

What are we about to get with this proposed carbon emissions trading legislation, higher priced everything and lots more unemployment. But don't worry, our contribution will make a huge difference to the world's climate and the people in India and China with their clean power consumption will thank us by producing cheaper goods to put even more Australian businesses to the wall.

[willem]

I think this is a pretty good example of one persons opinion clouding the facts.

As far as the statement that “nuclear power is safe” I think is far from reality as this Accident list (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml) will confirm.

16 accidents in nearly 60 years! And most of those accidents with old, first generation nuclear power plants. Some of them not even to do with power generation - a nuclear sub does not count as a power generation plant.

The only fair thing would be to compare this with the accidents in coal fired power generation plants. I don't have the figures handy, but it would be an interesting comparison. I used to work in Collie in Western Australia, where there were both the coal mines and the power station using the coal. Their safety record wasn't perfect, I can tell you!

I think you will find that nuclear power safety record is pretty good, compared to other methods.

I reckon there's a little bit of pot and kettle here, drivesafe, old chap!

Willem

[drivesafe]

As the Russian government has never admitted to the real number of people who died as a result of Chernobyl, I think you would be hard pushed to find anything like the cost let alone the lost of life in anything related to fossil fuel use.

I don’t support the continuing unrestricted use of fossil fuel but to say nuclear energy is safer is just the stuff of fairy tales, especially when you consider that the waste is lethal for at least 10,000 years for the waste of a product that had a useful life of about 20 years.

It just doesn't make sense and seems a tad selfish to saddle our children’s children for the next 500 generations, with the responsibility of looking after your waste.

[Disco_owner]

Tim,Nuclear Waste can be safely managed , It's all to do with the
Proper management of this nuclear waste ,and Im not talking about
burying in at the bottom of the ocean. Have a look at the Swedes
that have constructed a deposit some 500m underground, where
the fuel can be permanently stored.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/06/476.jpg


"they will encase the waste in 5cm-thick copper canisters, to protect
against corrosion," "Then, encase the cylinders in bentonite clay. It's
basically like cat sand; it absorbs humidity very efficiently, and swells when wet."
After all nuclear waste has been stored, the site would be filled in, and
safe enough to be left without human intervention until the radiation risk has gone

[JDNSW]

Without really entering into the argument about nuclear safety, it is worth pointing out that deaths from coal mining over the last sixty years would far exceed the death toll from nuclear accidents, even if you include Cherobyl. In China alone, for example, coal mining deaths have totalled around 45,000 since 2000, and the US has around 4,000 new cases of black lung per year, and China around 10,000, just to give a few figures.

And you should also note that coal fired power puts more radioactive waste into the environment (mainly from K40) than does nuclear power, albeit very low level - but worth considering if you think there is no safe level of radiation.

John

[CraigE]

16 accidents in nearly 60 years! And most of those accidents with old, first generation nuclear power plants. Some of them not even to do with power generation - a nuclear sub does not count as a power generation plant.

The only fair thing would be to compare this with the accidents in coal fired power generation plants. I don't have the figures handy, but it would be an interesting comparison. I used to work in Collie in Western Australia, where there were both the coal mines and the power station using the coal. Their safety record wasn't perfect, I can tell you!

I think you will find that nuclear power safety record is pretty good, compared to other methods.

I reckon there's a little bit of pot and kettle here, drivesafe, old chap!

Willem
That is all fine and nuclear power is probablly one of the viable long term options once perfected a little more. For starters countries like Australia do not have the techniccal personel to run them and we would struggle to attract techs from overseas. Then there is the issue of where to locate them. Can you honestly say you would be happy to have it built in your neighbourhood?:o Would you also be happy to have the waste buried at your local tip?:o Most people would not and as the case has been want it somwhere else. Just look at what they wanted to do to WA, near where I used to live. At this point in time WA do nt produce Uranium (though that is set to change). We were expected to take all the waste from around the world. What a joke. The country that refines the yellow cake and then uses it in their refineries should also dispos of it as they are the ones that create the hazzardous waste product not the miner. As a secondary option it should be returned back to where it was mined, ot just to an isolated area near Kalgoorlie, just because the populous in the eastern states that benefit from it do not want it near them. If you want the benefits then you have to also take the associated costs.

[drivesafe]

Hi Disco_owner, while the Swedish “solution” is an improvement, it is still little more than hiding the problem.

If we were to stop using fossil fuels tomorrow, in less than 50 years, all pollution and other environmental effects will have ceased.

One more point that gets conveniently overlooked when ever the so called perceived advantages of using nuclear power are floated, is that nuclear power generation is one of the most expensive forms of power generation and requires massive government investment to make it viable and this cost does not include the enormous waste storage cost.

This, more so than any environmental risks, is probably the main reason there have been no new plants built in the USA in nearly 30 years.

[JDNSW]

........

This, more so than any environmental risks, is probably the main reason there have been no new plants built in the USA in nearly 30 years.

It is perhaps worth remembering that the USA is not the world. Using the yable from Wikipedia, there are currently 4449 power reactors providing over 400,000 megawatts, of which about 25% is in the USA, where there are 104 of those reactors, and nuclear power provides about 20% of power.

[JDNSW]

........

This, more so than any environmental risks, is probably the main reason there have been no new plants built in the USA in nearly 30 years.

It is perhaps worth remembering that the USA is not the world. Using the table from Wikipedia, there are currently 449 power reactors providing over 400,000 megawatts, of which about 25% is in the USA, where there are 104 of those reactors, and nuclear power provides about 20% of power.

Unlike the USA, where as you say no new plants have been built in 30 years - except for one currently under construction, and 30 proposed - there are, worldwide, 32 under construction, 51 planned or ordered, and 217 proposed. Obviously all countries do not share your views on the costs. (I suspect that "proposed" has a wide variety of meanings from "someone's brainstorm" to "plans are almost finished")

As is fairly well known, the outstanding user of nuclear power is France, where it provides 77% of power, but other major users of nuclear power (as a proportion of power generation) include Japan 34%, Ukraine 47%, Sweden 46%, Belgium 54%, Switzerland 43%, Slovakia 54%, Lithuania 64%, Slovenia 42% and Armenia 43.5%.

John

[norto]

Nuclear power is a great solution if they can make it safe.

[drivesafe]

Unlike the USA, where as you say no new plants have been built in 30 years - except for one currently under construction.

As is fairly well known, the outstanding user of nuclear power is France, where it provides 77% of power, but other major users of nuclear power (as a proportion of power generation) include Japan 34%, Ukraine 47%, Sweden 46%, Belgium 54%, Switzerland 43%, Slovakia 54%, Lithuania 64%, Slovenia 42% and Armenia 43.5%.

John

The last time a plant came online in the USA was 1996 and this plane was started in 1973. This was only half of the two reactors planned. The second half, also started in 1973, is due on line in 2011.

Hardly what you would call “NEW” and as the two plants are also used to produce weapons grade Tritium and the profit made from the Tritium rods is a contributing factor in the running cost of the plant.

So should we start constructing these sorts of plants here?

Most of the counties that use nuclear power do so because they lack other forms of energy and as yet, none have come up with a viable means of waste handling. Just shaving it in a hole in the ground is not the answer.

[JDNSW]

The last time a plant came online in the USA was 1996 and this plane was started in 1973. This was only half of the two reactors planned. The second half, also started in 1973, is due on line in 2011.

Hardly what you would call “NEW” and as the two plants are also used to produce weapons grade Tritium and the profit made from the Tritium rods is a contributing factor in the running cost of the plant.

So should we start constructing these sorts of plants here?

Most of the counties that use nuclear power do so because they lack other forms of energy and as yet, none have come up with a viable means of waste handling. Just shaving it in a hole in the ground is not the answer.

I make the point again, that the USA does not constitute the world. Certainly the countries that tend to use more nuclear are those that have few alternatives, at least without relying on imported energy (mostly they have to rely on imported uranium, but the sheer volumes required are minuscule compared to any other energy source, meaning the effect of supply interruptions can be almost eliminated with stockpiles that are quite manageable).

Without the pressure to reduce carbon emissions it would make no sense for Australia, with coal resources equal to thousands of years of domestic consumption to even think about nuclear.

I don't have a definite answer to whether Australia should be building nuclear power plants. But they are almost* the only base load power plant that can be up and running in time to replace coal if the government's plans to reduce Australia's emissions are to be met.

*The only realistic alternative is to replace coal fired power stations with natural gas ones. This will not make as big a reduction in emissions, and will require other deeper cuts as well, but might make it, supplemented by green power.

I have little faith in clean coal - while technically quite feasible and using well understood technology, I have great difficulty seeing it being economically viable. The high cost of clean coal, or coal paying emission charges, or the opportunity cost of gas will make nuclear look economically attractive in the relatively near future.

Regardless of what is done about power generation, assuming something similar to the government's plans goes ahead, expect to pay at least three or four times in real terms than what you are paying now for power, and proportionately more for everything you buy that uses power (i.e. everything).

John

[clean32]

I think this is a pretty good example of one persons opinion clouding the facts.

As far as the statement that “nuclear power is safe” I think is far from reality as this Accident list (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml) will confirm.

Mate sorry but thats pot kettle thing

look at coal Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste)

or Coal Combustion - ORNL Review Vol. 26, No. 3&4, 1993 (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html)

[drivesafe]

Hi Clean32, I won’t go to the links as I would probably agree with what they show but my argument is not that fossil fuel is safe, it’s that it is controllable and what dangers do exist, are short term in that once we have a “SAFE”, clean alternative, the effects of using fossil fuel will quickly dissipate.

This is never going to be the case with nuclear fission fuelled power supplies.

As already posted, there use means we are condemning hundreds of generations to an on going danger, all because we used the fuel for about 20 years.

Furthermore, there is now a real possibility that fusion reactors may be a feasible power generation source with the first attempt at constructing an industrial sized reactor being planned for, and the irony is that some of the worlds biggest nuclear power using nations are the main financiers.

And while a fusion reactor is still potentially dangerous, both during it’s power generation and it’s waste storage, but there is no China Syndrome possibility and the waste has a maximum life span, including it’s degradation beyond low level waste, of no more than 300 years, which is some what of an improvement over the 100,000 years of high level danger that fission reactor waste posses.

Again, fossil fuel is dirty and toxic but is still a much safer intermediate power generating source than any form of fission power generation.

[ATH]

We're being conned by those with vested interests like KRUDD who just love jetting off to yet another gab fest at which nothing is ever decided upon. The conference industry, airlines, many scientists all have an interest in keeping the chat and funding going as long as possible and bugger the cost to jobs or peoples pockets.
Nuclear fission is being looked at as a possible means of power generation in maybe a hundred years but before they do that they have to invent the materials to contain the enormous heat generated by it as it will turn stainless steel into liquid in seconds.
Nothing we have now will possibly stand up to such tremendous heat.
The experiment they have planned is a very very brief burst of fission lasting just seconds to give them something to analyse and how to work towards containment.
Stop polluting by all means but don't go down the path of yet another money spinner where industry can trade it's permits and polluters can just keep polluting.
I'm definitely a sceptic mostly becuase people like KRUDD are so enthusiastic and anything pollies are enthusiastic about is going to cost us money.
Nothing they do will alter climate change which is totally natural and has been going on since the Earth began.
Alan.

[clean32]

OK got your point but sorry based on your argument i cant agree, i think that the taking of the lesser evil is the option, unfortunately this is the opposite of what you are advocating.

Nuclear power stations have ( if you wish to look into it) produced less land contaminated than conventional fossil fuel burning power generating stations.
The pendulum swings even further in favour of nuclear power generation if we look at the number of Mega watts per death and then look at the number per injury. If that is you argument then statisticly it falls in favour of nuclear.

Another point you have made is the long term effects and this is a very important point. But the counter argument is that burning fossil fuels to produce electricity has to date done more damage to the environment ( back to my unlocking ) than all the nuclear incidences have done to date per megawatt produced.

The power plants today are of a design ( basically 3 designs) with there roots in the 1950s even the French stations are 1960s but with upgrades. The newer plants have a totally different layout and are presumably safer.

As for waste, if France can refine there total annual waste down to a block the size of a loaf of bread and even better this is the total waste produced. In comparison fossil fuel burning station cant collect all there waste, it is spear though the atmosphere, buried etc.

As I said before the lesser of the 2 evils





Hi Clean32, I won’t go to the links as I would probably agree with what they show but my argument is not that fossil fuel is safe, it’s that it is controllable and what dangers do exist, are short term in that once we have a “SAFE”, clean alternative, the effects of using fossil fuel will quickly dissipate. This is never going to be the case with nuclear fission fuelled power supplies. As already posted, there use means we are condemning hundreds of generations to an on going danger, all because we used the fuel for about 20 years. Furthermore, there is now a real possibility that fusion reactors may be a feasible power generation source with the first attempt at constructing an industrial sized reactor being planned for, and the irony is that some of the worlds biggest nuclear power using nations are the main financiers. And while a fusion reactor is still potentially dangerous, both during it’s power generation and it’s waste storage, but there is no China Syndrome possibility and the waste has a maximum life span, including it’s degradation beyond low level waste, of no more than 300 years, which is some what of an improvement over the 100,000 years of high level danger that fission reactor waste posses. Again, fossil fuel is dirty and toxic but is still a much safer intermediate power generating source than any form of fission power generation.

[d2dave]

That is all fine and nuclear power is probablly one of the viable long term options once perfected a little more. For starters countries like Australia do not have the techniccal personel to run them and we would struggle to attract techs from overseas. Then there is the issue of where to locate them. Can you honestly say you would be happy to have it built in your neighbourhood?:o Would you also be happy to have the waste buried at your local tip?:o Most people would not and as the case has been want it somwhere else. Just look at what they wanted to do to WA, near where I used to live. At this point in time WA do nt produce Uranium (though that is set to change). We were expected to take all the waste from around the world. What a joke. The country that refines the yellow cake and then uses it in their refineries should also dispos of it as they are the ones that create the hazzardous waste product not the miner. As a secondary option it should be returned back to where it was mined, ot just to an isolated area near Kalgoorlie, just because the populous in the eastern states that benefit from it do not want it near them. If you want the benefits then you have to also take the associated costs.


I live in country Victoria and it wouldn't worry me if it was built near me so long as I couldn't see it or hear it. Lets say 5 kms away
Dave.

[LOVEMYRANGIE]

:zzz: I was so bored, I nodded off mid read.... seriously!! :zzz:

All those "new scientific studies" that get splashed out by A Current Affair, Today Tonight etc etc etc, how do you think they get money....??????

How do you think journalists get paid..........?????

HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO................!!!!!!!!!

Just listen to an ad on the radio during the day like "..We tell you how a pen can seriously hurt you, even kill you...."

The pen hurts you by sticking it up your nose.

The pen kills you by sticking it up your nose a little too far....

No actual merit in any of the studies, but out there, people sit back and say "....sh*t, I better be careful next time I have a pen in my hand and have the sudden urge to shove it up my shnoz, I might die!!!", and they seriously believe it, meanwhile some dipsh*t hard up journo with no credibility or talent other than editing the actual truth gets paid, the network gets paid by the corporate sponsor of the show and financially the world spins round at our expense.

Throw in the Government with more pointless studies at taxpayers expense which prove nothing other than they can only conclude a Royal Commission into the study is required, because some judge thought that the $800,000 a year he earns wasnt enough so he thinks to himself "I'll ring my mate in Parliament and get a reccomendation for myself and 5 of my judge mates a nice little earner..." !!!!

I despise self righteous imposing politicians, the media and in general anyone who preys on financial gain by trying to scare people out of their money.

Much like Religious door knockers and those who tell you your going to hell if you dont repent, prey on the weak and the stupid and fill their heads full of sh*t.

Brrrrr, bit cold in my study, think I'll just go turn the heater up........ :twisted:

[clean32]

That is all fine and nuclear power is probablly one of the viable long term options once perfected a little more. For starters countries like Australia do not have the techniccal personel to run them
they are just big steam turbines just like a cole fired power station



and we would struggle to attract techs from overseas.

i would guess from maybe india Pakistan Iran Iraq any of the former soviet countries. just a guess but i think there may be a few who would like to live in a country where you are not constantly in fear of the security police and maybe you would like to earn a bit nor than 600 - 1200 USD a month ?

but then maybe you think aussies are not that bright?



Then there is the issue of where to locate them. Can you honestly say you would be happy to have it built in your neighbourhood?:o

come on this is australia. one of the biggest lumps of dirt with only what 20 million?



Would you also be happy to have the waste buried at your local tip?:o Most people would not and as the case has been want it somwhere else. Just look at what they wanted to do to WA, near where I used to live. At this point in time WA do nt produce Uranium (though that is set to change). We were expected to take all the waste from around the world. What a joke. The country that refines the yellow cake and then uses it in their refineries should also dispos of it as they are the ones that create the hazzardous waste product not the miner. As a secondary option it should be returned back to where it was mined, ot just to an isolated area near Kalgoorlie, just because the populous in the eastern states that benefit from it do not want it near them. If you want the benefits then you have to also take the associated costs.
do you have any idea of what the refining process is ?

[JDNSW]

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

come on this is australia. one of the biggest lumps of dirt with only what 20 million?
...............


And half of them live in two major cities, and most of the rest in another three cities, and in any case 80 - 90% live within 50km of the coast of "the world's largest island" (or smallest continent?)

John

[Lionel]

Hardly what you would call “NEW” and as the two plants are also used to produce weapons grade Tritium and the profit made from the Tritium rods is a contributing factor in the running cost of the plant.


Ummm! Something wrong here, Drivesafe. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen - a gas!! What's with the rods?

Cheers,

Lionel

[isuzurover]

Ummm! Something wrong here, Drivesafe. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen - a gas!! What's with the rods?

Cheers,

Lionel

From wikipedia...


Nuclear weapons

Tritium is widely used in nuclear weapons for boosting a fission bomb or the fission primary of a thermonuclear weapon. Before detonation, a few grams of tritium-deuterium gas are injected into the hollow "pit" of fissile plutonium or uranium. The early stages of the fission chain reaction supply enough heat and compression to start DT fusion, then both fission and fusion proceed in parallel, the fission assisting the fusion by continuing heating and compression, and the fusion assisting the fission with highly energetic (14.1 MeV) neutrons. As the fission fuel depletes and also explodes outward, it falls below the density needed to stay critical by itself, but the fusion neutrons make the fission process progress faster and continue longer than it would without boosting. Increased yield comes overwhelmingly from the increase in fission; the energy released by the fusion itself is much smaller because the amount of fusion fuel is much smaller.

Besides increased yield (for the same amount of fission fuel with vs. without boosting) and the possibility of variable yield (by varying the amount of fusion fuel), possibly even more important advantages are allowing the weapon (or primary of a weapon) to have a smaller amount of fissile material (eliminating the risk of predetonation by nearby nuclear explosions) and more relaxed requirements for implosion, allowing a smaller implosion system.

Because the tritium in the warhead is continuously decaying, it is necessary to replenish it periodically. The estimated quantity needed is 4 grams per warhead.[3] To maintain constant inventory, 0.22 grams per warhead per year must be produced.

As tritium quickly decays and is difficult to contain, the much larger secondary charge of a thermonuclear weapon instead uses lithium deuteride as its fusion fuel; during detonation, neutrons split lithium-6 into helium-4 and tritium; the tritium then fuses with deuterium, producing more neutrons. As this process requires a higher temperature for ignition, and produces fewer and less energetic neutrons (only D-D fusion and 7Li splitting are net neutron producers), LiD is not used for boosting, only for secondaries.

[Lionel]

From wikipedia...

I know about tritium, but you can't make it into rods, for heaven's sake!

Cheers,

Lionel

[drivesafe]

I know about tritium, but you can't make it into rods, for heaven's sake!

Cheers,

Lionel

They extract it from the spent rods and the thats probably the only reason the plant was completed, because of the military application of the spent fuel rods.

[Mudsloth]

I love fission, specially when i catch sumthin.


YouTube - mudsloth's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/mudsloth)

[JDNSW]

They extract it from the spent rods and the thats probably the only reason the plant was completed, because of the military application of the spent fuel rods.

It is a bit difficult to get the figures from the Wikipedia article on tritium, but it looks as if the commercial demand is several times the military demand. There would be no need to build a special reactor for the purpose, irradiation of lithium rods could be done in any operating reactor, including the one at Lucas Heights, whose main function is to irradiate materials for various commercial and medical purposes.

Just because a reactor is used for a secondary function does not mean that is why it was built.

John

[clean32]

And half of them live in two major cities, and most of the rest in another three cities, and in any case 80 - 90% live within 50km of the coast of "the world's largest island" (or smallest continent?)

John

and thats my point. build the thing some where else

<<<< power plant<<<<<>>>>>>aussies>>>>>>>>

[drivesafe]

I make the point again, that the USA does not constitute the world.

While the number of reactors may or may not be going up in some countries, in others, Austria, Sweden and Italy, referendums have shown that the voters in these countries no longer want nuclear power and the governments have decided to phase it out.

[norto]

Tim
Most people shouldn't be allowed to vote:)

[drivesafe]

Don’t get me wrong.

The sooner they start building more nuclear power stations, the sooner the fossil fuel mobs will have to lower the prices, to keep us using their *****e.

There’s an up side to almost everything.

[blitz]

:zzz: I was so bored, I nodded off mid read.... seriously!! :zzz:

All those "new scientific studies" that get splashed out by A Current Affair, Today Tonight etc etc etc, how do you think they get money....??????

How do you think journalists get paid..........?????

HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO................!!!!!!!!!

Just listen to an ad on the radio during the day like "..We tell you how a pen can seriously hurt you, even kill you...."

The pen hurts you by sticking it up your nose.

The pen kills you by sticking it up your nose a little too far....

No actual merit in any of the studies, but out there, people sit back and say "....sh*t, I better be careful next time I have a pen in my hand and have the sudden urge to shove it up my shnoz, I might die!!!", and they seriously believe it, meanwhile some dipsh*t hard up journo with no credibility or talent other than editing the actual truth gets paid, the network gets paid by the corporate sponsor of the show and financially the world spins round at our expense.

Throw in the Government with more pointless studies at taxpayers expense which prove nothing other than they can only conclude a Royal Commission into the study is required, because some judge thought that the $800,000 a year he earns wasnt enough so he thinks to himself "I'll ring my mate in Parliament and get a reccomendation for myself and 5 of my judge mates a nice little earner..." !!!!

I despise self righteous imposing politicians, the media and in general anyone who preys on financial gain by trying to scare people out of their money.

Much like Religious door knockers and those who tell you your going to hell if you dont repent, prey on the weak and the stupid and fill their heads full of sh*t.

Brrrrr, bit cold in my study, think I'll just go turn the heater up........ :twisted:


love it love it love it

Roflmao

I'd vote you in as President just because you hate them so much.:D:D

Oh and nuclear they can build the plant in my back yard, and bury it there as well - no seriously they can, I would get heaps in royalties.

I drive one of the most inefficient vehicles ever created - my landy, so for me to bag any form of power generation would make me a hypocrite so I wont.

[vnx205]

Last edited by blitz; 23rd June 2009 at 11:54 AM.. Reason: need spell check on here

Use Firefox.
It has a spell checker that works when posting on AULRO.

[blitz]

Last edited by blitz; 23rd June 2009 at 11:54 AM.. Reason: need spell check on here

Use Firefox.
It has a spell checker that works when posting on AULRO.

What I really need to do is proof read my writting before I post it, just lazy i guess

[vnx205]

What I really need to do is proof read my writting before I post it, just lazy i guess

It is a good idea to do the same thing with your writing. :p

You're right though. A spell checker is not a complete substitute for a bit of careful proof reading.

[blitz]

It is a good idea to do the same thing with your writing. :p

You're right though. A spell checker is not a complete substitute for a bit of careful proof reading.


Ok that got a laugh out of me, I need to check my writing after it has been written