N-Power for Australia
netvegetable
South Wales) are currently shilling for nuclear power.
Is it environmentally friendly? I realise it's pretty much zero emissions,
but the process of mining it is said to be incredibly energy intensive
(not to mention water intensive!).
Can the waste be recycled, or disposed of safely?
Would Australia be adding to the global problem of nuclear proliferation
if we were to adopt this technology?
Is it economic? Would we need to invest heavily in new technologies to
start generating meaningful amounts of power this way? How great are
running costs?
If we are going to have to invest heavily in what is for us at least,
whole new expensive technologies, could we not be better off investing in
geothermal "hot rock" technology, solar-thermal technology, socalled
"clean coal" technology etc?
--
A: Top posters
Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet
#politics irc.austnet.org (the aussie politics channel!)
#political_forum irc.undernet.org
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
Petzl
<netveg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Both the Prime Minister, and the Premier of Australia's largest state (New
>South Wales) are currently shilling for nuclear power.
>
>Is it environmentally friendly? I realise it's pretty much zero emissions,
>but the process of mining it is said to be incredibly energy intensive
>(not to mention water intensive!).
>
>Can the waste be recycled, or disposed of safely?
>
>Would Australia be adding to the global problem of nuclear proliferation
>if we were to adopt this technology?
>
>Is it economic? Would we need to invest heavily in new technologies to
>start generating meaningful amounts of power this way? How great are
>running costs?
>
>If we are going to have to invest heavily in what is for us at least,
>whole new expensive technologies, could we not be better off investing in
>geothermal "hot rock" technology, solar-thermal technology, socalled
>"clean coal" technology etc?
Nuclear Reactors *third generation* are state of art and should create
little enviromental concern.
They do though have an ability to be used for the creation of Nuclear
Weapons which Australia also now needs
Australia is a worlds major supplier of uranium so I see no reson not
to develop the skills in generation and manufacture
Petzl
--
LET'S LOOK OUT FOR AUSTRALIA
http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/
Protecting our way of life from terrorist threat
Peter Webb
"netvegetable" <netveg...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.13...@nospam.com...
> Both the Prime Minister, and the Premier of Australia's largest state (New
> South Wales) are currently shilling for nuclear power.
>
> Is it environmentally friendly? I realise it's pretty much zero emissions,
> but the process of mining it is said to be incredibly energy intensive
> (not to mention water intensive!).
>
No, the mining process is not particularly energy intensive. Like many other
mining processes, it uses water for tailings, but this isn't a real problem
in Australia.We already mine Uranium, and the amount need for a domestic
nuclear power industry would represent only a fraction of the existing mine
outputs.
> Can the waste be recycled, or disposed of safely?
>
Yes. Unlike waste from fossil fuel plants (CO2, which is dumped into the
air). The problems of disposing of waste are political rather than
technical.
> Would Australia be adding to the global problem of nuclear proliferation
> if we were to adopt this technology?
No. Australia is a major exporter of Uranium already. Using some of the
Uranium for domestic purposes would appear to have no impact whatsoever on
non-proliferation, except possibly our own ability to develop nuclear
weapons if we choose to in the future (unlikely).
>
> Is it economic? Would we need to invest heavily in new technologies to
> start generating meaningful amounts of power this way? How great are
> running costs?
Taking environmental costs into account, probably the cheapest power source
we know of.
>
> If we are going to have to invest heavily in what is for us at least,
> whole new expensive technologies, could we not be better off investing in
> geothermal "hot rock" technology, solar-thermal technology, socalled
> "clean coal" technology etc?
>
> --
Well, maybe those things will work at some reasonable cost, and maybe they
won't. Would be foolish to base our energy strategies too heavily on
unproven technology. Nuclear power is well proven, and in many respects
ideal for Australia.
Scott Hillard
> South Wales) are currently shilling for nuclear power.
Way past time somebody had the balls to raise it -pity that neither of them
have actually backed the idea - just floated it.
Softcocks.
> Is it environmentally friendly? I realise it's pretty much zero emissions,
> but the process of mining it is said to be incredibly energy intensive
> (not to mention water intensive!).
So coal mining isn't?
> Can the waste be recycled, or disposed of safely?
Plenty of space out West. Better than flinging the waste into the sky, like
you do when burning coal.
Ever heard of Radon?
> Would Australia be adding to the global problem of nuclear proliferation
> if we were to adopt this technology?
Only if we used it to build weapons - which we should.
> Is it economic? Would we need to invest heavily in new technologies to
> start generating meaningful amounts of power this way? How great are
> running costs?
As 'cheap' to build as a new coal-fired or gas power station - which the ALP
communists want to build in NSW.
John Phillips
where I live) "Scott Hillard" wrote:
> As 'cheap' to build as a new coal-fired or gas power station - which the ALP
> communists want to build in NSW.
To keep their bludger union mates in what they euphemistically describe as
"work".
--
Eschew Obfuscation!
David Bradford
"Scott Hillard" <shillard@_nospam_ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:Qnare.79$H53....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> "netvegetable" <netveg...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.06.13...@nospam.com...
>> Both the Prime Minister, and the Premier of Australia's largest state
>> (New
>> South Wales) are currently shilling for nuclear power.
>
> Way past time somebody had the balls to raise it -pity that neither of
> them
> have actually backed the idea - just floated it.
>
> Softcocks.
>
>> Is it environmentally friendly? I realise it's pretty much zero
>> emissions,
>> but the process of mining it is said to be incredibly energy intensive
>> (not to mention water intensive!).
>
> So coal mining isn't?
>
>> Can the waste be recycled, or disposed of safely?
>
> Plenty of space out West. Better than flinging the waste into the sky,
> like
> you do when burning coal.
>
> Ever heard of Radon?
>
>
>> Would Australia be adding to the global problem of nuclear proliferation
>> if we were to adopt this technology?
>
> Only if we used it to build weapons - which we should.
Should we? Why?
Would Indonesia want to do the same thing?
Peter Webb
"David Bradford" <davi...@mewstone.comSPAMSPAM> wrote in message
news:42ad6f2e$1...@quokka.wn.com.au...
Of course we shouldn't build nuclear weapons. That would only encourage the
Indonesians to do the same thing.
Of course we should have the capability to build nuclear weapons in the
future, if we wanted to. If this capability was developed (or, more likely,
preserved) as a byproduct of a completely innocent civilian nuclear power
program, so much the better.
netvegetable
Why bother with nuclear weapons? We could make bio weapons much more
cheaply, quietly and with less fuss.
I've read that with modern genetics, it's even conceivable to make a virus
that affects people of a certain race. A bug that hones in on Javanese for
instance.
ewq
but yes, bring on the n-power.
(and red-necks; do the rest of us a favour, stick 'em up ya bum & blow your
brains out)
Sylvia Else
Scott Hillard wrote:
> Way past time somebody had the balls to raise it -pity that neither of them
> have actually backed the idea - just floated it.
What I think they're doing is trying to gauge whether they can push for
nuclear power without committing political suicide. That in turn will
depend on what stance is taken by politicians of other political colours.
The Greens will oppose it - but they oppose everything - and no one
cares what the Democrats think now - so it comes down to how the major
parties view it.
Sylvia.
John Sefton
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:42ae4f01$0$14820$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Historically, Labor always supported it, until all that factionalisation
crap saw the Left-wing of the party win the anti-nuclear stance in exchange
for their support. It'd be nice to see "Labor" favour the workers over the
middle classes for once, but don't hold your breath.
Troppo
news:pan.2005.06.13...@nospam.com:
> Both the Prime Minister, and the Premier of Australia's largest state
> (New South Wales) are currently shilling for nuclear power.
>
> Is it environmentally friendly? I realise it's pretty much zero
> emissions, but the process of mining it is said to be incredibly
> energy intensive (not to mention water intensive!).
Environmentally friendly? Antagonistic to life !!
>
> Can the waste be recycled, or disposed of safely?
No. Not yet anyway. Some wastes have a half-life of tens of thousands of
years. "Bury it" still seems to be current practice. Put it in a hole
where it is difficult to get at if something goes wrong.
Pangea organisation (including British Nuclear Fuels) want to bring waste
to Australia. If it's safe, then why not bury it in the UK?
>
> Would Australia be adding to the global problem of nuclear
> proliferation if we were to adopt this technology?
Probably
> Is it economic? Would we need to invest heavily in new technologies to
> start generating meaningful amounts of power this way? How great are
> running costs?
It used to be said that it takes the power of one nuclear power plant to
produce another. If that is still the case then it takes many years
before there is energy profit.
> If we are going to have to invest heavily in what is for us at least,
> whole new expensive technologies, could we not be better off investing
> in geothermal "hot rock" technology, solar-thermal technology,
> socalled "clean coal" technology etc?
Of course - and start being far more efficient in the use of energy etc.
Dennis
Scott Hillard wrote:
> "netvegetable" <netveg...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.06.13...@nospam.com...
> > Both the Prime Minister, and the Premier of Australia's largest state (New
> > South Wales) are currently shilling for nuclear power.
>
> Way past time somebody had the balls to raise it -pity that neither of them
> have actually backed the idea - just floated it.
>
> Softcocks.
Scott
Suggest you look at a speech that I made on March 7 in parliament on
the issue-I guess you could say that I started it.
Do a search on http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/search_main.aspx for
"Dennis Jensen" and you will see numerous speeches and newpaper
articles on the issue. I'll just add the speech that I made on 7 March
here (I have gone further later, just do the search):
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (6.53 p.m.)-As an aside, I was very interested to
hear the member for Scullin talking about planning for future
transportation. The constituents of my electorate of Tangney are very
concerned about the selling-off of public land by the state government
for the Roe Highway, a piece of public infrastructure which is
desperately needed by the people of Tangney to get traffic off local
roads. However, that departs a little from the contribution I wanted to
make on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2004-2005 and related bills.
We are reaching a crisis point in terms of oil production and oil use.
There will come a time in the future-no-one is quite sure yet what
sort of time period we are looking at-when demand will outstrip
supply. At that time we are going to have to look at energy
alternatives. Clearly, now is the time to be thinking about what
alternative energy sources we could potentially use.
People are still going to want to use personal transport and mass
transportation systems. We will need an alternative to oil. There is an
alternative to oil, which has been broached quite often, and that is
the so-called hydrogen economy. Initially we would look at using
hydrogen as the fuel source in a normal internal combustion
engine-BMW has already demonstrated the capacity-where the waste
product is water. However, this is not quite as efficient as fuel
cells. Obviously the technology we would be looking at later, which is
currently in its infancy but is rapidly moving towards maturity, would
be hydrogen fuel cells, where efficiencies are very high-somewhere
around 60 to 70 per cent energy conversion.
The problem with hydrogen though is: where do we get the hydrogen from?
There have been methods put up by the fuel companies where, for
instance, we would use natural gas or other hydrocarbons. I would argue
that that is not a very good solution, as you are still emitting
pollutants. The best solution is simply to get water and use
electrolysis to produce hydrogen. The problem here is that the
generation of hydrogen using electrolysis requires a lot of power.
Where is that power going to come from? I think most members would
agree that using fossil fuels to generate electricity to produce fuel
for personal vehicles would not be a good way of going about it,
because once again the emissions would be very high.
All sorts of solutions using renewable energy sources have been bandied
about and I would like to discuss some of these. A proposal that is
heard a lot in Australia is the use of solar power generation. There
are significant problems with this, however. First of all, the solar
flux at ground level is very low. If you had a solar cell one metre by
one metre that was 100 per cent efficient you would still only have
enough power to power a one-bar radiator heater-that is it. However,
solar cells are not 100 per cent efficient. The current
state-of-the-art performance is about 16 to 20 per cent for
commercially available solar cells or around 30 per cent for extremely
expensive triple-junction solar cells that are used on satellites. Even
with this level, the problem with solar cells is that you get what is
called diffusion with heat, which limits the life of solar cells. So a
lot of energy is required to produce solar cells in the first place;
they have a limited life and they need to cover a very large area.
Another method that has been bandied about is wind energy. There are a
number of problems with wind energy. Firstly, it is environmentally
unfriendly on a number of grounds-the wind-powered generators are
known to kill birds and they are unattractive to many people who live
near them. There are also problems with the variability of wind. What
do you do when you do not have enough wind to generate power? How are
you going to store energy for times when you do not generate wind
power? There are clearly problems as far as wind energy is concerned.
One area that we really need to revisit is that of nuclear power. The
fundamental issues and problems that people have with nuclear energy
are related to safety and waste disposal. First of all, I would like to
outline the safety of relative electricity generation sources. I will
quote figures in terms of normalised deaths per terawatt year-in
other words, if you generate one terawatt of energy for a calendar
year, how many deaths can you expect in the industry? For coal fired
power stations, there are 342 fatalities per terawatt year. They are
predominantly related to the coal workers actually extracting the coal.
The number would be far worse if the figures where there were fewer
than five fatalities per incident were included. With oil, the number
is 418. With natural gas, it is somewhat lower. There are 85 fatalities
per terawatt year, and these are workers and also the public.
Incidentally, LPG related fatalities are extremely high-3,280 per
terawatt year of electricity generated. With hydro-electricity, a
method that some in the green movement like and some hate, there are
883 fatalities per terawatt year-predominantly involving the public,
due to collapsing dams et cetera.
Now we come to nuclear energy, with 31 fatalities per terawatt year.
These are the workers. I know that some members opposite might like to
point to Chernobyl. According to the OECD, there have been 10
fatalities in 10 years, due to thyroid cancer-the major medical
problem with radiation exposure. So, as we can see, nuclear is actually
a very safe option-and it is safer these days when you can have gas
cooled nuclear power stations and adequate fail-safe systems put on.
The problem with Chernobyl, apart from anything else, was that it had
inadequate containment. Western containment has been far better. The
worst event that we have seen in the West was at Three Mile Island,
where the containment worked and the problem with the partial meltdown
was due to an operator error.
As far as costs are concerned, gas, coal, oil, nuclear and wind energy
have similar mid-term generating costs. These costs are typically
within 10 per cent of each other. There are problems as far as waste is
concerned. We have seen some of the bad methods of attempting to
dispose of waste, such as dropping drums overboard from ships or
putting it in concrete and then having to wet down the concrete
continually to prevent excessive heat build-up so that the concrete
does not turn to dust. However, we have a marvellous Australian
invention that can be used to dispose of waste, and this product is
called Synroc. This material was the result of the discovery of
naturally occurring plutonium in West Africa a number of years ago.
Interjection
Mr Martin Ferguson-We've lost control of the process now.
Continue
Dr JENSEN-Thank you for that. As far as the material itself is
concerned, it was not recognised that plutonium occurred naturally. Of
course, being a highly radioactive material, there was a lot of
interest in how this material could be stored stably within the
structure of the rock. One of the professors from ANU had a look at the
structure of the rock and, together with ANSTO, the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation, came up with a synthetic analog.
They developed this material, Synroc, standing for synthetic rock, that
is a product of what is called a 'HIP-ing' process, hot isostatic
pressing. This is a material that allows you to store high-grade
nuclear waste for geological time periods, and the nuclear material
will not leach in water.
I have mentioned the issues relating to safety and illustrated that
nuclear energy, despite the common perception, is actually exceedingly
safe and that you can get rid of waste safely. Let us now look at some
of the alternative sources. Tidal power has been mentioned as a method
of generating power, particularly up in the north-west of Western
Australia where there are 12-metre tides. However, I had a look at the
amount of power that would be generated by a proposal that was put up
for Derby. They were talking about 48 megawatts, or 48 million watts,
of tidal power at Derby. The problem is that, to generate enough power
to meet Australia's current needs, you would need 900 Derby type
tidal power stations.
Another method is wind power. I have already outlined some of the
environmental concerns, but let us look at the thing physically. Using
current state-of-the-art wind turbines-and anyone who has been down
to Albany or Esperance in my state of Western Australia would know that
they are huge structures-we would need 22,500 to generate
Australia's current electricity needs. There have been proposals for
ocean current power, particularly with the Leeuwin-I think the
Leeuwin flows at about four knots, but do not quote me on that-but
they are at the embryonic stage. They have merely been proposed. To my
knowledge, pilot scale plans have not even been put up.
I have mentioned the solar problem in basic terms, but let us put it in
real terms. To generate Australia's power needs using solar
cells-and let us assume that we are using space grade solar cells
that are 30 per cent efficient-we would need a solar cell array of
12.3 kilometres by 12.3 kilometres. Imagine making that many solar
cells. The problem is, once again, that solar cells only work when
there is sun; they do not work at night. So, as far as night is
concerned, you can double that figure. As well, there is not as much
solar flux during the early morning and the late afternoon, so you can
probably get close to quadrupling that figure. You are then talking
about an array of approximately 50 kilometres by 50 kilometres of solar
cells-not very practical.
The only method that I have heard of that is somewhat viable is the
solar tower turbine method that is proposed for Mildura. This has not
seen a full industrial trial; however, it has seen small trials and it
seems to work. The problem is that it is a massive structure. They are
talking about it being a kilometre high and approximately 20 square
kilometres in area. You can generate similar amounts of power by
reducing the height of the tower, but then you have to increase the
area. There they are talking about approximately 200 megawatts of peak
power. To generate enough power for Australia's needs, we would need
225 solar towers. The problem there is, once again, that you still need
sun for it to work adequately. It is possible that you could use a
closed loop fuel cell unit, where you generate hydrogen when you have
excess capacity and then you use that hydrogen in a fuel cell to
generate power when you have excess demand. However, fuel cells, as I
have mentioned, are still not fully commercially developed, and 225
solar towers are a lot of solar towers.
The people in my electorate are sick and tired of power outages and
power shortages. In Western Australia last year, in February, we had a
power cut for no good reason apart from inadequate power supply. There
has been inadequate infrastructure development in terms of power
stations; in fact, there have been no new power stations authorised in
the last four years. This is a significant problem, where we are
running short of power. The Western Australian government is now
proposing a desalination plant which is going to up the load that is
required by another 10 per cent-not a very efficient way of doing it.
The power cuts in my electorate are also caused by overhead power
lines. Residents have been going on for years about the necessity to
put the power lines underground but, unfortunately, a completely deaf
ear has been turned to that.
In summary, it is clear that there are problems with both solar power
methods: solar cells and the tower method. For solar cells, you are
talking about a huge area. You require a lot of money to produce the
solar cells in the first place. Then you have to maintain them. You
have to keep them clean because, obviously, if there is any dirt on
them, it reduces their efficiency. I do not think we have the capacity
to produce a solar cell array that is 50 kilometres by 50
kilometres-and that is just for the current energy load that we
require. What about when we get to the hydrogen economy, where we will
need a lot more power to generate the hydrogen? The solar tower, as I
have already outlined, is still in its feasibility stages. Even if it
gets beyond that, we would still require a massive number of these
solar towers.
Wind is too problematic. It is a haphazard way of producing power. You
do not get consistent wind-and what do you do in the off-periods? I
have to admit that tidal power surprised me. I did not think we would
need 900 tidal power stations to generate our power needs-I actually
saw that as a good way of going in the future. Clearly, the current way
of generating power is not the way that we want to do it, because all
we are doing is putting more pollutants in the air to generate the
hydrogen that we require.
So, as I mentioned, nuclear power is something that we have to
consider. We have to start a reasoned debate on nuclear energy. I am
not saying, 'Build nuclear power stations tomorrow,' but we really
need to have a reasoned debate-not an emotive debate, which flies in
the face of evidence. Nuclear power is safe; it has been proven
historically. There are many 1950s technology nuclear power stations
that are still operating effectively. There are literally hundreds of
nuclear power stations around the world, including-of all
places-Japan, which was the only country ever to be attacked by
nuclear weapons. If ever there was a country that should fear nuclear
energy, it should be Japan. I urge the Australian people to start
actively thinking about their future energy needs and getting involved
in a reasoned debate.
Terry Collins
>
>
> Now we come to nuclear energy, with 31 fatalities per terawatt year.
> These are the workers.
And at this point, the shit detector went wild and I stopped reading.
Come back when you have accurate figures. Nuclearpower has this major
problem of waste that hangs around for millenium longer than any human
civilsation has been known to survive.
Ian St. John
> Dennis wrote:
>>
>>
>
>> Now we come to nuclear energy, with 31 fatalities per terawatt year.
>> These are the workers.
>
> And at this point, the shit detector went wild and I stopped reading.
You stopped thinking long before that.
> Come back when you have accurate figures. Nuclearpower has this major
> problem of waste that hangs around for millenium longer than any human
> civilsation has been known to survive.
Actually, the 'spent uranium' fuel slugs are more radioactive than the rock
they came from for about a few centuries, less if you reprocess and use the
high level elements in 'passively safe' thermogenerators for remote
locations. It is a 'major problem' only if you define the requirements for
safety in an insane manner. Treating the spent slugs until they are the same
level of danger as the natural ore makes for a more rational approach.
Dennis
Accurate figures? I suggest you look at the UNSCEAR report on
fatalities related to Chernobyl. (I suppose a detailed UN scientific
study is tainted to you-doesn't fit preconceived ideas).
I also sugget that you look up OECD and other sources on actual
fatality rates.
Dennis
DalienX
> >
> >
>
> Of course we shouldn't build nuclear weapons. That would only
> encourage the Indonesians to do the same thing.
> Of course we should have the capability to build nuclear weapons in
> the future, if we wanted to. If this capability was developed (or,
> more likely, preserved) as a byproduct of a completely innocent
> civilian nuclear power program, so much the better.
Got news for yas, we probably already have nukes, there are many
strange military installations out in the desert that "dont exsist"
--
DalienX
Martin
source
> we know of.
Actually the least expensive power source is improved consumption
efficiency. Not only does it have the advantage of being zero emission, but
it actually increases the political stability of the globe.
Imagine that.
--
"We must create a <economic> crisis in order to ensure that there is no
alternative to a smaller government." - Bush - Imprimus Magazine 1995.
"We seek to remove resources from the control of the state, thereby starving
it." - International Society for Individual Liberty - NeoCon Libertarian.
"Throughout his term, Bush has implied tax cuts would starve the government,
paying for themselves by causing budget deficits that, in turn, would place
heavy pressure on Congress to lower spending." - Jeff Lemieux - Senior
Economist - Progressive Policy Institute.
"They have an agenda which is to starve the government of revenue. But in
order to get it through, they keep on having to pretend that the tax cuts
are affordable, and so they've been suppressing the likely cost of
everything, including the war on terror." - Paul Krugman - Economist.
Martin
> > start generating meaningful amounts of power this way? How great are
> > running costs?
"Scott Hillard" <shillard@_nospam_ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:Qnare.79$H53....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> As 'cheap' to build as a new coal-fired or gas power station - which the
ALP
> communists want to build in NSW.
Quite impossible. Reactor systems are vastly more complex than simple
coal fired plants. One need only consider the requirement for
interconnected redundant backup systems to appreciate the difficulty. Even
on face value, it's obvious that doubly redundant systems cost twice the
price to install and maintain.
Anyone who claims that this is not the case, is either as stupid as dung,
or as dishonest as George W. Bush.
Either way, such a claim demonstrates the untrustworthyness of Nuclear
proponents who have in the past committed deliberate acts of murder to hide
the defficiencies of their power systems.
Martin
news:42ad7167$0$17509$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Of course we should have the capability to build nuclear weapons in the
> future, if we wanted to. If this capability was developed (or, more
likely,
> preserved) as a byproduct of a completely innocent civilian nuclear power
> program, so much the better.
Once again we see.... Nucelar power = Nucelar Weapons Proliferation.
Martin
news:Jhbwe.4704$mK5.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Actually, the 'spent uranium' fuel slugs are more radioactive than the
rock
> they came from for about a few centuries, less if you reprocess and use
the
> high level elements in 'passively safe' thermogenerators for remote
> locations. It is a 'major problem' only if you define the requirements for
> safety in an insane manner. Treating the spent slugs until they are the
same
> level of danger as the natural ore makes for a more rational approach.
This is approximately correct, as long as you make the proper corrections
for the different chemical and radiological characteristics of the source
rock and residual radioactive species.
Waste disposal is a real issue when one consders that a switch to
predominantly nuclear power economy would result in a situation where the
current store of Nuclear Waste, generated since the first reactor went on
line, is replicated globally every month or two.
So far the World has had two core meltdowns. At this rate in a global
nuclear economy they would be occurring once a month as well. Now
improvements can be made. Perhaps they could get it down to one core melt
every year.
The real problem of course is political. Nuclear Power = Nuclear Weapons.
As the above Austrilians - chomping at the bit to use thier civilian nuclear
program to produce weapons - clearly demonstrate.
Martin
"Dennis" <d_sj...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:1120032953.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Accurate figures? I suggest you look at the UNSCEAR report on
> fatalities related to Chernobyl. (I suppose a detailed UN scientific
> study is tainted to you-doesn't fit preconceived ideas).
In total, it is estimated that 30,000 will eventually die due to the
Chornobyl event.
Martin
> creation of Nuclear Weapons which Australia also now needs
Thanx for confirming that Nuclear power begats nuclear weapons producting.
The claim that it doesn't has never been a honest one.
Now lets consider how many nuclear power plants the world needs.
200,000 new reactors is the best estimate so far. 400 being in Iraq and
another 400 being in Iran of all places.
Imagine that.
Martin
ALP
> > communists want to build in NSW.
"John Phillips" <flatula...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:867674060.20...@deadspam.com...
> To keep their bludger union mates in what they euphemistically describe as
> "work".
Now that's an odd claim givent the simple fact that it takes more people
to run a nuclear plant than a coal fired one. A nuclear plant therefore
would expand union's ranks.
Once again Stupidity, lies and deceit, issue from the mouth of a Nuclear
Supporter.
Martin
news:42c0f5d6$0$87054$c30e...@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
> And at this point, the shit detector went wild and I stopped reading.
> Come back when you have accurate figures. Nuclearpower has this major
> problem of waste that hangs around for millenium longer than any human
> civilsation has been known to survive.
Haven't you heard the good news Terry? Radiation is good for you. Or at
least that what the Nuclear Zealots have been claiming for the last several
decades.
The only good Republican is a dead Republican.
Jensen
"Martin" <G...@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:TS2ye.3321$7h....@read2.cgocable.net...
>> > As 'cheap' to build as a new coal-fired or gas power station - which
>> > the
> ALP
>> > communists want to build in NSW.
>
> "John Phillips" <flatula...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:867674060.20...@deadspam.com...
>> To keep their bludger union mates in what they euphemistically describe
>> as
>> "work".
>
> Now that's an odd claim givent the simple fact that it takes more people
> to run a nuclear plant than a coal fired one. A nuclear plant therefore
> would expand union's ranks.
>
> Once again Stupidity, lies and deceit, issue from the mouth of a Nuclear
> Supporter.
Suggest you ask Pater Garrett why he said nuclear energy would result in
less jobs. After all, he has the same hue of green as you.
Dennis
Jensen
"Martin" <G...@Pyro.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
> "Dennis" <d_sj...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1120032953.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Accurate figures? I suggest you look at the UNSCEAR report on
>> fatalities related to Chernobyl. (I suppose a detailed UN scientific
>> study is tainted to you-doesn't fit preconceived ideas).
>
> In total, it is estimated that 30,000 will eventually die due to the
> Chornobyl event.
>
do you come up with the baloney 30 000 figure? Your Green mates?
Dennis
New Directions In Building Services (Australia)
"Martin" <G...@Pyro.net> wrote in message
>> Taking environmental costs into account, probably the cheapest power
> source
>> we know of.
>
> Actually the least expensive power source is improved consumption
> efficiency. Not only does it have the advantage of being zero emission,
> but
> it actually increases the political stability of the globe.
>
> Imagine that.
Improving consumption is one piece of the puzzle and legislation is now
attempting to manage this problem with ne construction and refurbishment,
however most existing consumption (especially commercial, residential and
educational facilities) are stuck with the poor, inept and short sighted but
competition based decisions made by those who should have known better and
when there was no governmental oversight at all (in NSW Australia, even the
current legislation is in it's infancy and lacks any real penalty to those
who ignore or circumvent it).
Personally I'm all in favour of the NucPower as our Brown Coal plants would
have to be right up there with the dirtiest power sources in the world and
the real cost/kW should include environmental impact which again returns to
NucPower as being right up there with HydroElec in terms of cheapest cost/kW
projected over the life of the plant plus continuing environmental
implications.
At the same time there also needs to continue development of incentives and
penalties by legislation which has effectiveness to ensure that energy
wastage is minimised. There are very few shareholders out there who care
about anything other than the return on their investment on a year by year
basis - the directors are usually required by these shareholders to focus on
maximising that return. Simple economics suggests that this means doing the
least for the most return....
As an added thought CoGen and Fuel Cells are not really great alternatives
due to the maintenance lifecycle costs and windfarms are sooo... NOISY
(another polutant). The energy and on cost for large Solar-farms is far too
expensive. WavePower looks good but the surfers would all complain about it.
It goes on and on ...
Ken
out much power - how strange, given that 20year warranties are the
norm, with some guaranteed for 30 years. Some manufacturers are
expecting their cells to be still working at better than 90% of their
capacity after 100yrs- I'll try and find the link - I've used them and
live in an area where a lot of people use solar and solar panels
failing due to heat is something I've never encountered - it's not like
they stop working on hot sunny days - on the contrary hot sunny days
see batteries charged quickly and most of the days energy goes
unused and the next day they're still working perfectly. Bring on grid
tied and Bring on better batteries - that would be a bigger advance
for australia than nukes given that 20 square metres of mere 10%
efficient cells would provide an excess of energy for most Australian
housenolds. Much less than the suitable north facing roof area of most
suburban homes. Solar needs the better energy storage and needs cheaper
production methods but solar cells have proven long term reliability
and there's no shortage of room to put them without even looking at
dedicated solar farms. I think that failing to follow up on the
significant advances in Photovltaics (much of the best work done right
here in Australia) would be shortsighted and see our most abundant
energy source severely underutilised.
Ken
Karl Johanson
> Now lets consider how many nuclear power plants the world needs.
>
> 200,000 new reactors is the best estimate so far. 400 being in Iraq
> and
> another 400 being in Iran of all places.
If Iraq has a population of around 26 million and Iran has a population
of around 68 million, why would you suggest they'd need the same number
of power plants? Where'd you get your estimates from? Scott Nudds?
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
Improvement in US reactors happened after the core melt at TMI (quite a
lot of them). Chernobyl was far worse than just a core melt, and
upgrades to other RBMK reactors were made after the accident.
> The real problem of course is political. Nuclear Power = Nuclear
> Weapons.
Most of the world's weapons grade fissile material is weapons grade
Uranium.
Uranium can be enriched to weapons grade using electricity from ANY
electricity source. The US primarily used coal for this, but you can
use,
nuclear, oil, natural gas, hydro, biomass, solar, wind, geothermal,
tidal,
OTEC or whatever. Uranium is ubiquitous on this planet and electricity
is a nuclear weapons proliferation risk. Some weapons grade fissile
material is Plutonium, produced in weapons grade
Plutonium production reactors (a few of which also produced trivial
amounts of electricity). A nuclear power plant could make weapons grade
Plutonium (at a greater cost and effort than a production reactor), but
you'd have less weapons grade material than if you ran the power plant
properly and used the electricity to enrich natural Uranium to weapons
grade (meaning
you've reduced proliferation, rather than increased it).
Some nuclear power plants are going to use blended down weapons grade
fissile material for nuclear fuel, getting huge amounts of power from
it,
and rendering the fuel far less weapons usable.
Shutting down commercial nuclear power plants won't prevent nuclear
weapons
from being built. What it might do is increase the number of wars fought
where access to oil supplies is a significant factor.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
> In total, it is estimated that 30,000 will eventually die due to the
> Chornobyl event.
Assuming the number is accurate, that's less than the of people the UN
estimates are killed every by biomass energy emissions every 5 days or
so.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
> Haven't you heard the good news Terry? Radiation is good for you.
-Any dose of radiation can cause genetic damage (this is right down to
one
alpha, or one beta, one gamma, or one neutron, or even one UV photon
from
sunlight).
-The amount of damage from background radiation is trivial compare to
the
amount of genetic damage from thermal effects and from metabolic effects
such as free radicals. (Around 10,000,000 times greater.) Your cells
also
undergo
somewhere around 2 'double strand' genetic errors per day due to thermal
and
metabolic effects. Assuming you have 25 trillion cells in your body (I
don't
know how big you are), that's around 50 trillion non-radiation related
'double strand' genetic errors in your body per day.
-The body has complex systems for dealing with free radicals, for
repairing
genetic damage, for recognizing cancerous cells and for apoptosis (self
death
of potentially dangerous cells).
-High levels of radiation don't cause most of their problems by causing
significantly more genetic damage, but by damaging the bodies ability to
deal with genetic damage (most of which would still be from thermal and
metabolic causes).
-There is extensive evidence that low level radiation stimulates the
body's
ability to produce some anti-oxidants for dealing with free radicals,
and
the ability of cell's ribosomes & other mechanisms to repair genetic
damage,
and the ability of the immune system to deal with cancerous cells, and
the
tendency for apoptosis to deal with potentially cancerous cells. (You
are
also likely aware of the bodies ability to produce vitamin D on exposure
to
some types of radiation.)
-There is extensive epidemiological evidence that some levels of
radiation
in
the low level range doesn't increase age adjusted cancers (and in fact
lowers them according to some studies). There is also epidemiological
evidence that low level radiation doesn't negatively affect life
expectancies.
-In addition to radiation 'hormesis' there is also evidence that we have
an
'adaptive' response to radiation. The form of this adaptive response to
which you are likely most familiar, is the tendency for people's skin to
produce additional melanin when exposed to UV radiation. This is only
one of
the mechanisms though. I mention 'adaptive response as some confuse it
with
'hormesis'. The phenomenon are related, but not the same.
Karl Johanson