Follow Britain’s nuclear lead

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/10/2738203.htm?site=news
Apparently other formerly anti nuclear nations, such as Sweden and Italy, have also reversed their former policies and are building new nuclear. I feel the tide is beginning to turn. A poll running on Adelaide Now has 79% for nuclear power. Why not drop in and add your vote.

LikeLike

I thought it might be interesting for readers to see two reactions in today’s Daily Telegraph to “Britain’s Nuclear Lead”. The Telegraph is right of centre and neither correspondent quoted is out and out anti-nuclear. Both express caveats.

Environment correspondent:

“Energy efficiency plans lost in drive for atomic option”

“The change in policy, as Mr Miliband made clear, was brought about by increasing evidence of the dire effects of climate change.
The problems of nuclear power have not gone away despite more than half a century of use in Britain.
We still do not know how we are going to dispose of its highly radioactive waste.
Human error will always cause accidents, no matter how well reactors are designed, and a disaster in one of the planned power stations could be especially devastating because they could release more radioactivity. And they remain tempting targets for terrorists.
None of these drawbacks outweigh the dangers of climate change and so it will be well worth embracing the atom if it can prevent global warming running out of control, or even play a major part in doing so. That, however, is not yet clear.
The reactors cannot be built quickly, and are almost always hit by delays and overrunning costs.
That is what happened to the only two examples, in finland and france, of the reactor EDF wants to build in Britain, and now nuclear regulatorsin all three countries have expressed doubts about their safety.
The essential thing is not to put too many eggs in the nuclear basket.
It is far from clear that it will deliver in time, and a single bad accident or terrorist outrage could cause the world to turn away from nuclear power.
The other elements in Mr Miliband’s – cleaning up emissions from coal and rapidly expanding renewable resources – are even more important.
But the most vital, and cost-effective , policy of all would be to reduce the waste of energy.”

I find this very depressing. Seems to be written by an anti nuclear reporter wishing to retain his job with a pro nuclear editor. I don’t know whether there should be a response from someone with the authority to do so and possibly have an effect.

The second piece is more interesting and raises questions to which I would like reassuring answers:

Business comment – Damian Reece:

“To keep the lights on and meet our environmental targets, including generating 30% of electricity from renewables by 2020, we are going to have to find £200 bn – that’s Ofgem’s official estimate. This scale of investment needs to start being made now if we’re going to meet Miliband’s dream of having the first of of our new nuclear sites humming by 2018 – but we’re in the middle of the worst credit crunch in 80 years, making financing for this sort of thing challenging.
But we’re not alone in wanting to build more nuclear reactors.
China, for instance, is expected to have completed 22 by the end of next year with 132 planned in the next 20. This is according to Japan Steel Works, which supplies specialist steel casings in which the nuclear reaction takes place – it pretty much has a monopoly on that business and has been turning out parts for 5.5 reactors a year. The good news is it’s investing in its plant so it can supply kit for 12 reactors a year but the queue forming outside its headquarters on Japan’s Hokkaido Island is lengthening by the day.
I see the Chinese in the line, the Indians, French, Poles, Hungarians, Italians and many others but no sign of the Brits. Even if there was enough kit and capital to go round, ther’s no certainty the French and German utilities that control nuclear here will choose to invest in the UK compared to their own nuclear-hungry domestic markets that may have higher subsidies and better returns. To make it attractive here, assuming the technology works, energy prices are going to have to rise, which is why that £200bn bill
will end up on our doormats. The consumer will pay and, given that time is running out thanks to Labour dithering, that cost will be a burden in the immediate term, not the long term.
The fact that the cost of emitting carbonis still low enough to make investing in alternatives a mug’s game anyway makes Miliband’s vision of “near- zero carbon emissions from power delusional.”

How serious is the potential bottleneck of special steel for pressurised reactors? How quickly could other steelworks gear up to cope? Given the uncertainty for investors, what should government’s do to expedite matters? Should they take a nationalised approach or encourage private equity? Britain appears to have sold out its nuclear industry to the French. Was this sensible? If not, how long would it take to start again with one’s own nationalised nuclear industry? Would this be legal?
Pension Fund managers have huge amounts of money to invest but are struggling to find suitable investment opportunities which would give safe long term returns. Could governments do anything to convince them that investing in nuclear would achieve their aims? If so, what?

LikeLike

The editorial is over Britain’s plan for deploying reactors of the Gen III type. Was not this clear Peter? It was to me. All Gen IV reactors need to be talked up, financed R&D and develop clear national and international plans to deploy them. They compliment Gen III reactor deployment at several levels and will, eventually, replace them.

No one said Italy and Sweden are building nuclear power plants. The made the first big steps by eliminating their “bans” on new nuclear and are setting up the process to build new ones.

At any rate, there are over 40 reactors under construction world wide and this is the model we need to look at. Countries are going nuclear because it’s clearly in their national interest to do so. The UK has simply started lumbering in that direction. Good for them.

LikeLike

I think Adelaide is a good place to have this debate because in the back of people’s minds are concerns about hypocrisy, self reliance and looming problems. Like it or not the State is a key player in the world nuclear fuel cycle via uranium mining at Olympic Dam, Beverley, Honeymoon and Four Mile. Gas reserves (Cooper and Otway basins) have peaked and future gas will have to come from far away. Some generation (Playford B coal station) needs urgent replacement. An exotic stream (River Murray) cannot be depended upon for water supply and grid sapping desalination will be needed. Future summers may hit 50C when wind power doesn’t help and air conditioning will be rationed.

So Adelaide has both the means and the need to turn to nuclear power. If it doesn’t there will be serious cutbacks, something that may sit uneasily with the city’s many artistic folk. Perhaps they are hesitating to vote ‘No’ on the Adelaide Now poll. There are a few stumbles ahead though. Next year’s decision on the Olympic Dam expansion will be no decision and new gas fired generation will be built regardless. However in a couple of years the logic will be inescapable.

LikeLike

Jim, I’m not sure quite where you are coming from. Barry can speak for himself, but it seems to me that it not a question that Generation III NPPs are some how “inferior” or not “worthwhile”. They are quite worth while. They are safer than Gen II reactors, more fuel efficient, and it will take a safe, relatively cheap deployment of Gen III reactors to win over the public to this wonderful way of producing energy and at the same time providing the equipment needed to phase out coal and gas. I don’t understand why you think Barry is somehow remiss in supporting *currently* deploying fission power?

Secondly, I’m not sure why you are hung up on the ‘tense’ Barry is using in describing the IFR. When engineers and scientists describe what a technology can do,, they don’t use “could of” “would” “should”, etc. I’ve never seen a paper that describes any technology with such ‘flaky’ could of/should of/would of terms. But that’s me.

LikeLike

In most cases Gen III/Gen III+ will be built for the time being in most countries simply because of the problems getting type approval for novel designs. While this is certainly sub-optimal, it is the only practical route that can be taken at the moment under the regulatory regimes that currently are in force in most nations.

As for the uranium issue, yes perhaps there will not be much interest in breeders in those countries with a uranium mining industry, however countries like India have made their intentions clear that they wish to exploit their indigenous thorium supplies, and not be dependent on others for fissionable material for their reactors. One can also imagine that should the US begin a major effort at building nuclear power plants, that they too will make the same calculation, as they do not produce that much yellowcake from local supplies.

LikeLike

I have some questions about the speed of development of nuclear. I’m convinced we need it, and I most like the look of MSRs, but a few things I’ve seen recently worry me about how much time we actually have to develop fossil fuel alternatives before the fossil fuels run out.
I originally posted this question at:

A necessary interlude

This article furthers my worry about this

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5953
“Yesterday’s Guardian raised questions about whether oil reserves published in the past by the IEA have been inflated.
Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower”

I do not want to spend time on learning how to go back to the land to survive with a gun to shoot people who want the food in my vegetable garden.
Can someone please re-assure me we can (and will) develop the MSR/IFR soon enough to avoid the picture of doom most people on TOD think is the future?

LikeLike

David

As I understand it, gen III still has the problem of long-lived waste, right? If so, this is a major problem for many people – if gen IV mostly solves the problem, then that fact should be stated loud and clear at every opportunity. Instead of saying, “well done the Brits for building new reactors, lets do the same”, I’d like to see people like Barry saying “this is a step in the right direction, but we desperately need to move towards Gen IV reactors because….”.

My concern with the” tense” is that, in the context it was written (an opinion piece in a newspaper, not a scientific paper), it implies the waste issue is already solved (i.e. waste already is being “burnt as energy”) – its not, because there are no fast reactors yet (or are there?). I just think a statement more like “it could be burnt as energy in fast spectrum reactors, if only the world would embrace that technology ….” would have better promoted fast reactors and would have been less likely to be interpreted as deliberately misleading (which I’m sure it wasn’t – but you have to be very careful with an issue like this).

LikeLike

There_Is_No_Such_Thing_As_Nuclear_Waste. Ninety-five percent of a spent fuel rod is plain old U-238, the non-fissionable variety that exists in granite tabletops, stone buildings and the coal burned in coal plants to generate electricity. Uranium-238 is 1% of the earth’s crust. It could be put right back in the ground where it came from.

Of the remaining 5% of a rod, one-fifth is fissionable U-235 — which can be recycled as fuel. Another one-fifth is plutonium, also recyclable as fuel. Much of the remaining three-fifths has important uses as medical and industrial isotopes. Forty percent of all medical diagnostic procedures in the Western world now involve some form of radioactive isotope, and nuclear medicine is a $4 billion business.

What remains after all this material has been extracted from spent fuel rods are some isotopes for which no important uses have yet been found, but which can be stored for future retrieval. France, which completely reprocesses its recyclable material, stores all the unused remains — from 30 years of generating 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy — beneath the floor of a single room at La Hague.

The supposed problem of “nuclear waste” is entirely the result of a the decision in 1976 by US President Gerald Ford to suspend reprocessing, which President Jimmy Carter made permanent in 1977. The fear was that agents of foreign powers or terrorists groups would steal plutonium from American plants to manufacture bombs.

That fear has proved to be misguided. If foreign powers want a bomb, they will build their own reactors or enrichment facilities, as North Korea and Iran have done. The task of extracting plutonium from highly radioactive material and fashioning it into a bomb is far beyond the capacities of any terrorist organization.

‘Waste’ burning reactors are in fact just more efficient reactors, that have been named more as a PR effort than anything else.

But in the end the shear volumes of long-lived hazardous waste generated by burning coal dwarf the ‘waste’ produce by a once-through nuclear reactor for the same amount of electricity generated. Not only that, but it is easily immobilized, solid and less toxic than coal ash. Of course it also didn’t produce any CO2 while it was being used.

LikeLike

re# 34631 Barry Brook and #34146 Peter Lang

On this thread, Barry, you state that Gen III can only fuel the planet for 3-4 decades and that, if nuclear power is to be sustainable, we’ll need Gen IV technology. This is entirely consistent with what I’ve read elsewhere. You have also pointed out that, to maximise the the speed and extent of emissions reduction, we need Gen IIIs now to provide sufficient “start charges” to deploy plenty of Gen IVs as soon as they become available.

Peter, on the “Critique of “a path to sustainable energy by 2030” “thread, you suggested that Gen III technology itself was more sustainable than renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

I am wondering whether there is an inconsistency of view between you on this subject. It is possible, Peter, that you may consider, for example, that 3-4 decades should really be 3-4 centuries or 3-4 millennia. Alternatively, you may merely have been implying that , if we rely on renewables only, there will be so much economic chaos that we won’t have a sustainable civilisation in less than 3-4 decades anyway.

I wonder if it would be possible for a little more discussion of this matter in order to achieve some degree of consensus.

LikeLike

Douglas Wise a variety of opinions on uranium reserves have been given in the series of articles in The Oil Drum by Francois Cellier. Comments on the first article alone
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5631
canvas estimates ranging from decades to centuries for once-through uranium depending upon economic ore grades and unconventional sources. I guess the ultimate question is how much can a benevolent economy afford to pay for energy whatever the source.

A thing that troubles me is the inconsistency between declaring that certain technologies will never work on a large scale and the certain belief that modular Gen IV will arrive in time. I think we have to work with what we’ve got.

LikeLike

Scott,

Your point is absolutely correct and is often over looked. Many of the existing coal fired power plants are due for replacement. These must be replaced with either new baseload technology. Coal is the least cost. According to Acil Tasman http://www.aciltasman.com.au/images/pdf/419_0035.pdf
Table 35, the costs for new coal would be:
$2,452/kW – Ultra super critical black coal
$2,697/kW – Ultra super critical brown coal

So, about half the cost of nuclear but with much higher operation and maintenance costs. And much higher externalities costs.

So, as you say, the cost of building ne nuclear or new coal is not as great a differences as often stated.

Gas is cheaper capital cost, but much higher operation and maintenance costs, and shorter life expectancy. Importantly, cost of electrcity from gas generation is highly susceptible to gas costs. Gas costs will rise by over the next fuew years as Australian gas prices move to world parity.

LikeLike

Douglas,

I did not mean to imply that we should not get on with developing Gen IV. We most certainly should. All the funding we are pouring into CCS RD&D should be diverted to nuclear. As should a large proportion of the funding being spent on renewables. I would apportion our energy RD&D funds in proportion to projected return on investment. That means the bulk would be spent on working out how to implement Gen III+ in Australia at the least cost as soon as possible. We should also participate in international Gen IV research. We should set up, as soon as possible, advanced civil nuclear engineering research capability in several universities (at least one in each state and ANU.

LikeLike

Later on I would like to know the capacity factor this week for South Australia’s 800 Mw of nameplate windpower. I’ve pointed out before that SA’s power demand of 2.8 Gw in March 2007 gives us (Aust pop 22m)/(SA pop 1.1m) =20 so that a ‘national’ heatwave would give Australia a peak demand of 56 Gw.

My observation is that Adelaide’s Gen Xers are pro-nuclear. It’s Premier Rann’s cohort that is vehemently anti and they call the shots for now.

LikeLike

Seems I was being a little too kind to FOE et al- I have been reliably informed that a “bot” is actually a machine generated response which is probably the only way the on-line poll could have received 4, 500 votes within an hour and switched so dramatically to a “No” vote. Now that is just DISHONEST!!
They are even more rattled by the debate on nuclear than I imagined!
Luke – I agree we need to get out more information before a referendum, which was what I meant by saying it was too early to have it at the next election. We sure don’t want a referendum to go the wrong way – like the republic question:)

LikeLike

We absolutely must not have a referendum on the issue before the pro-nuclear community has had a chance to launch a mass public education campaign. Sorry it’s taking so long for my group to get its act together, but we all have lives which often interfere with the best intentions. I’m hoping we can start things on a modest scale early in the new year.

LikeLike

Webs and Weavers, I just had a quick look at the links you provided.

The first link is to an activist piece that hyperventilates over the fact that the operators of a uranium mines can request amendments to water quality targets during their remediation activities, and particularly cites Powertech for seeking an upward amendment for groundwater contamination to 3 mg/l uranium when the standard for drinking water is 0.03 mg/l.

I’ve become very wary of activist claims of this sort since reading this article that deconstructs recent reports of leakage from the Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu, which I commend to your attention as an exercise in fact checking and critical thinking:

The catastrophic effects of the Ranger Uranium Mine on local creeks

(really nice work there, uvdiv)

So I checked Powertech’s website on this issue, and found that

The water at the level of the ore zone at the mine site has a naturally high mineral content that makes it unsuitable for human use, livestock or agriculture. This water is not suitable nor currently used as a source of drinking water.

I have no knowledge of this particular development, but on the face of it, it seems likely that there was justification for requested adjustment, given that the water was already apparently poisonous, as you might expect from groundwater in the vicinity of a heavy metal ore body.

(The fact that this material had been requested by the author of the hydrology study to be removed from that website does not inspire confidence.)

I then had a look at this letter from Doctors for the Environment that you refer to. There’s no link to it from your citation (have you actually read it?) but it can be found here.

Its a shocker. There’s nothing in it. The only points I could glean from their letter were that (1) the proposed mine expansion would use a lot of water, and the diminished availability of water is a health issue; (2) there are no plans available to substantiate BHP-Billiton’s intention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the mine; and (3)

“The tailing dams are a health hazard – or more strictly we have to assume that they are a health hazard until a full health risk assessment study is completed.”

In other words, they have no reason to declare a health hazard, but will assume one.

There are huge ironies in this letter. Its deeply concerned with climate change, and water loss, and their health impacts, but doesn’t recognize the mines mitigation of the root cause of these maladies. And then, it doesn’t mount any argument for direct health impacts from the mining operations. There’s just nothing in it.

I generally don’t let others do my thinking for me, even eminent scientists, and these people are eminent medical scientists. But there is no indication that they have engaged the debate beyond a very superficial level, they don’t appear to make any substantive point, but they do appear content to lend their public authority and recognition to this statement, which strikes me as intellectually dishonest, and it should be an embarrassment to them.

LikeLike

Webs and Weavers #34965

“Uranium mining (and perhaps gold mining too) has caused more environmental desecration, more human misery and more human rights’ abuses than any other industry on the planet”

How can you possibly say this? How can you even compare the effects of mining to the loss of biodiversity you can observe pretty much anywhere in the world? How can you compare it to the coal industry driving the shift in climate? How can you compare it to the devastating effects of the agricultural “industry” observed throughout most of the world? How can you compare it the logging industry knocking down the world’s rainforests?

Furthermore, how is uranium mining and gold mining any worse than mining for cement and steel (which are done on a far larger scale), when much more of these resources are needed for the inadequate alternatives to nuclear power (ie. present day renewables)?

And please, enlighten me as to what part of mining uranium causes “more human misery and more human rights’ abuses” than virtually any other production process anywhere in the world?

LikeLike

Various grid connected desal plants claim their energy use will be ‘offset’ by wind farms to be built later. I think they should be off-grid and use a combination of wind, solar and battery banks. That way the true cost will be more transparent. For example I’ve heard the 400 ML/day Wonthaggi desal will draw 92 Mw and will be ‘offset’ by 300 Mw of as yet unbuilt wind capacity at Collector Hills. Since that’s kinda expensive I think they will declare already built wind capacity fills that role, as if by some magical foresight. Thus guvmints will assure us that wind energy is powering these desals even when it ‘s not blowing and it is not new.

I’ll repeat my prediction that the 35 Mw and 120 ML/day reverse osmosis desal ready to be built at Whyalla for Olympic Dam will neither be approved nor denied, just delayed indefinitely.

LikeLike

John Morgan – The link you provided, authored by “uvdiv” is irrelevant to the information I provided and is yet another “bait and switch.” “Uvdiv” has revealed his ignorance in his reference to the current mass leak at Ranger:

Hansard: Tuesday, 20 October 2009 Senate ECA 13 ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS:

Supervising Scientist, Mr Hughes:—“The situation is pretty much as I have said in the past. There will be no investigations possible into the amount of water that is sitting in the groundwater mound beneath the tailings dam while the tailings dam is there. So that will need to be undertaken after the tailings dam is removed and during the rehabilitation phase.

“As to lateral seepage from the tailings dam, the situation is pretty much as I have described it before; that is, the best way of determining the extent of that is by the use of geophysics…… I thought that it would probably be a timely thing to do to repeat that geophysical survey because it had not been done for a few years.

“ ERA have now completed another version of that geophysics. At the moment, they only have preliminary results…….. I do not know whether (the results) will remain confidential or not.”

“This water is not suitable nor currently used as a source of drinking water.” I trust you are not suggesting that groundwater hazardous plumes are motionless and always remain at the source of contamination?

“….which strikes me as intellectually dishonest, and it should be an embarrassment to them.” Your ad homs suggest that you know more than the experts who would have extensive knowledge in the matters of environmental toxicology and low level radiation exposure. Could you advise your independent sources please?

Nevertheless, I suspect that the Australian public will accept the professional advice from their most eminent doctors and scientists (including the nobel laureates) rather than the scribblings of posters such as you and me.

http://www.dea.org.au/node/323

I trust you will also find the following research papers (authored by Australian mining expert, Gavin Mudd) of assistance?:

http://search.monash.edu/?cx=001621737867968046729%3Ansl4i5alcty&cof=FORID%3A11&q=gavin+mudd&sa=Go#973

LikeLike

Barry, a clone? Good lord, I’ve still got all my hair!

Anyway, there’s so much wrong out there every now and then I just figure its my turn ..

LikeLike

Web and Weavers,

To put your concern about the contamination at Ranger in perspective, have you compared contamination at other mines? Is the contamination at Ranger worse than at other mines? Do you know? Or are you simply picking on Ranger because you don’t like uranium mining or nuclear energy?

LikeLike

Webs and Weavers,

You missed my point. I was attempting to ask if you are biased against uranium mining, or are you against all mining on a properly comparable basis. I expect from you comment you are simply biased against uranium. This puts your views in the catagery of ‘beliefs’ rather than being scientific. If, however, you have looeked at all mining and compared the environmental impacts and hazards on a properly comparable and fair basis, then I’d be very interested to hear and understand why you feel that Ranger, or any other uranium mine, is more environmentally damaging or hazardous than other mining.

It would also be very intersting to hear if you have studied, or have figures on, the environmental impacts and hazards of the mining and life cycle emissions for renewable enerrgy generators compared with nuclear. All comparisons on a properly comparable basis of course – for example per MWh of equivalent energy (eg baseload) produced over the life cycle.

Have you done this sort of comparison?

LikeLike

Insofar as mining as acknowledged as an environmental negative, uranium ore should be the first mineral of choice to be mined, as this will greatly reduce the mining needed for energy-related purposes, especially coal mining.

LikeLike

Webs and Weavers #35127

You pretty much avoided answering my questions at all. You’ve thrown in a few facts/figures designed to make the nuclear cycle sound bad, without making any of the comparisons I asked about.

“In the United States in 2006, windpower killed about 7,000 birds but nuclear plants killed about 327,000.” wasn’t mentioned in any of the links you supplied.

What I did find in one of the links under that quote:
“Nineteen plants on or near the California coast use 16.3 billion gallons of sea water every day.”
So we should be using fresh water instead? I don’t think so. And this differs from a solar thermal plant in which way?

Just to nit-pick (because quotes like the bird one annoy me as they’re misleading) – wind supplies less than 1% of electricity in USA, nuclear around 20%. So if you’re gonna do a proper comparision 7,000*20 = 140,000 birds if you had as much wind power as nuclear. I bet that doesn’t take into account mining processes either. Which brings me to my next point…

You supplied links as to the effects of mining on human rights and the environment, yet it seems you’re oblivious to the fact that you need something along the lines of 20 times more cement and 10 times more steel per unit of energy generated using wind power – ie. HEAPS more mining needed for renewable power sources. So by your definition, more human rights violations from the renewable sector.

Most importanly, you’ve failed to provide any evidence that indicates that uranium mining is more detrimental to human health and/or the environment than any other type of mining.

LikeLike

It was a list of specific examples of relatively recently constructed nuclear power plants, mostly Japanese, showing their good construction times, of 3 to 5 years on average in many cases.

Now I can’t find this page. Does anyone know the one I’m referring to (or anything similar on that subject) and where I can find it? Thanks!

It must be the IAEA PRIS database:

[IAEA] Power Reactor Information System

LikeLike

TeeKay

You don’t need to be educated in the sciences to understand the basic health and environmental impacts of the mining of uranium. In fact every relevant governing body, every cancer institute, every nuclear advisory body in the Western world has easy to read literature on the hazards of radioactive isotopes.

I regret that despite being the only poster here to provide links to assist you (yet you insist on more), you remain intellectually challenged.

Suffice to say that Radium 226 and its progeny (Radon) are Class 1 carcinogens which are the deadliest. The nuclear industry will tell you that Radon has a half-life of a mere 3.8 days but are reluctant to tell you that its parent, Radium 226, has a half-life of 1602 years. Can you figure that out? No?

However, despite the citizens of Australia saying “No!” to Mr Howard’s re-election after the release of the Switkowski report – “Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review,” the nuclear pundits have resurrected a cosmetic make-over of a “green” alternative to fossil fuels.

Unfortunately the “cash and grabs – the hit and runs,” attracted to the nuclear industry have again failed the smell test. You know the adage: “You can put lipstick on a pig but…….!”

Oddly the nuclear spin is not dissimilar to the spin of GW deniers and not surprising, has many of the same players.

According to the Switkowski report, Australia needs 25 reactors by 2050, to supply one third of the nation’s electricity, however, very few Gen. 111 (and 3+) are under construction and Gen 1V is still on the drawing board thus making a mockery of the report – in fact it’s hilarious even in the advent of Gen 11 reactors!

One needs only to remove the top layer of dirt to reveal the omnicidal objectives of those in charge of the nuclear industry – a brand new Manhattan Project!

The IAEA, in its section: “Fundamental safety principles”, advise that:

2.1.” This fundamental safety objective of protecting people — individually and collectively — and the environment has to be achieved without unduly limiting the operation of facilities or the conduct of activities that give rise to radiation risks.”

And what better way for the IAEA to practise its “radiation risks” than on depleted uranium dumped on Iraqi citizens – the new age cannon fodder! Iraqi women who have given birth to hideously deformed children – Ah……IAEA you’ve done it again!

The most recent endeavours to play dirty emerges from Australia’s “esteemed” nuclear body, ANSTO, caught out last month, corrupting the results of a poll on nuclear energy where participants lodged a resounding “NO” to nuclear:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/26/ansto-poll-goes-radioactive-quietly-changes-no-to-yes/

Nuclear power may be an option, but there is a dark and staggering cost to be paid.

An educated public have already weighed all these factors (despite the suppression of FOI) before allowing government and a deceitful private industry to act on their behalf. The bottom line is: local solutions are cheaper, cleaner, and safer than global solutions.

LikeLike

Suffice to say that Radium 226 and its progeny (Radon) are Class 1 carcinogens which are the deadliest. The nuclear industry will tell you that Radon has a half-life of a mere 3.8 days but are reluctant to tell you that its parent, Radium 226, has a half-life of 1602 years. Can you figure that out? No?

Where does Ra-226 come from? What is its association to nuclear power? Is it relevant at all to a discussion of nuclear power? If so, how? Can you answer these questions, or are you merely trying to drop some technical language in order to appear to have an understanding of the relevant science and technology, when in fact you have no understanding of it at all?

Radium-226 occurs in the Earth naturally, where it is a daughter product in the decay series of uranium-238. It is not created in nuclear fission, or in any other kind of anthropogenic way by means of a nuclear reaction. Ra-226 has no application or relevance in the context of nuclear power, and it is not formed or produced by nuclear reactors.

Radium-226 has a long history of use by mankind in medicine and in other technology, from its discovery by the Curies in 1898 through to 1950 or so when a diverse range of superior radionuclides started becoming available, produced artificially using reactors and accelerators.

All that radium used in that period, for medicine, physics research, clock dials and the like, was mined, taken out of the ground where it occurs naturally.

Regarding the ANSTO poll, for all we know, it seems likely that they have been the subject of a dishonest, fraudulent and anti-democratic vote-bot attack by anti-nuclear activists, just as we’ve seen with the recent poll included with Brook’s piece in AdelaideNow.

LikeLike

“At a minimum your accusations are unfounded, and are the product of a fool. I am still under the impression you are little more than a troll with little interest in understanding these subjects, wishing only to use this thread as a soapbox for your own ignorant ravings.”

Hmmm… spoken like a real industry shill .and not a link in sight to substantiate the ad homs and if there were, they would be extracted from the obfuscations peddled by the foxes in charge of the chicken coop.

May I recommend Rosalie Bertell’s (PhD) “No Immediate Danger – Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth”? Bertell has worked as a research scientist at UNY in Buffalo, was Senior Research Scientist at Rosewell Park Memorial Institute, a consultant for the Citizen’s Advice Committee for the Three Mile Island catastrophe and has published over eighty academic papers.

She has been called as an expert witness by the US Congress in hearings for nuclear power plants before the NRC and has testified before the Select Committee on Uranium Resources in Australia and at the Sizewell Enquiry in Britain – etc etc.

I’m afraid Bertell would demolish your dribblings in five minutes flat and send you packing.

But nice try endeavouring to separate the hazards of uranium mining from the nuclear cycle and I daresay it’s an insult to the intelligence of the Australian people, which merely adds more “fuel” to their fire.

Nice try endeavouring to paint your opponents as wackos – despite the compelling scientific evidence published by qualified and reputable sources who’ve managed to elude corrupt government censorship:

http://www.huliq.com/44227/government-found-interfere-public-health-research

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16350466?log$=activity

.And over 170,000,000 tonnes of waste rock and low grade ore already piled high from uranium mining, polluting the environment and not a nuke reactor in sight – except the one at Lucas Heights and that broke down soon after commissioning – at considerable additional cost to the taxpayer!

Add the 170,000,000 tonnes of waste rock (mostly pulverized) from U mines to the massive stockpile in other self-regulated mining industries and we’ve got a real toxic brew – swept along by the prevailing winds, contaminating the continent and beyond:

http://cooberpedyregionaltimes.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/filmmaker-david-bradbury-red-dust-dump-originating-at-woomera-is-grave-concern-for-public-health/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB2-4TagVY5JS-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=63194d32218e9d5fe7bcf7aed91609a6

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/corporate-abuse-hits-great-artesian-basin/story-e6frg6nf-1225777245125

But as I said – nice try shills – have a nice day!

LikeLike

“I did pst a link in my previous link. Did you look at it?”

Yes I did Peter Lang, however, I have a policy. I never put new shoes on dirty feet – dirty feet first need to be thoroughly cleansed and detoxed – but thank you for the link.

DV82XL

I was born into mining and I am the fourth generation to have had a career in mining – in both publicly listed and private companies.

Please refrain from trying to sell ice to an eskimo!

LikeLike

Webs and Weavers,

It seems to me you are totally emotional about this issue. I am not getting any assurance that it is possible to have a rational debate with you. Am I misunderstanding you? I think many here would be prepared to work with facts rather than emotive material. Would you?

To try to get to the nub of the problem, could you provide a high level of the main reasons for your discomfort with nucluear energy. Something like this:

1. too costly
2. proliferation potential
3. nuclear waste
4. contamination risk leading to health conseqences
5. contamination from mine operations
6. use of fresh water for cooling
7. land area required

Would these represent the main headings of the issues that concern you with nuclear electricity generation and uranium mining?

LikeLike

May I recommend Rosalie Bertell’s (PhD) “No Immediate Danger – Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth”? Bertell has worked as a research scientist at UNY in Buffalo, was Senior Research Scientist at Rosewell Park Memorial Institute, a consultant for the Citizen’s Advice Committee for the Three Mile Island catastrophe and has published over eighty academic papers.

Rosalie Bertell… isn’t she that crazy old Canadian lady who goes on about alleged government conspiricies concerning chemicals deliberately dumped in aircraft condensation trails?

LikeLike

Here’s another one, just for the sake of general amusement, and to ram home the point of the credibility of W&W’s sources.

http://depletedcranium.com/rosalie-bertell-freakin-crazy-old-lady/

LikeLike

DV82XL:

At a minimum your accusations are unfounded, and are the product of a fool.

W&W:

Hmmm… spoken like a real industry shill and not a link in sight to substantiate the ad homs ..

Actually, having done a bit of research, it seems there’s quite a lot of original source material to substantiate DV82XL’s assessments, which W&W refers to as ad homs. Here’s your linkage:

here,
and here,
and here,
and here,
and here,
and here.

DV82XL’s contention is comprehensively substantiated, with many linked citations to a reliable source.

LikeLike

And just a reminder of what we are up against in terms of scale…….

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/15/china-coal-industry-mongolia-shaanxi.

LikeLike

I hardly see how the items on this list, in its current form, is germane to the topic at hand. At any rate you have not shown my where I was wrong in our earlier exchange. To recap:

In my comment at 35330 I made three point answering your previous one.

I pointed out that radon hazards in mining were well known and have been controlled and are the subject of mining regulations all over the world. I asume this is also true in Australia. Am I to assume that Australia has no governmental mine safety authority that sets standards in these areas? I would think as a self-proclaimed fourth generation miner, you would be aware of such a body.

I also pointed out that this is not an issue limited to uranium mining, and in fact there are coal pits that are worse offenders. Are you also in favor of shutting down all mines, including collieries where there is detectable levels of radioisotopes present?

I then stated that the use of depleted uranium munitions is not under the control of IAEA, as you had contended. Do you have documented proof that states otherwise

Finally I showed that your grasp of the meaning of half-live and its relation to radioactivity are in grave error. If you do not agree can you show me scientific texts that support your interpretation

You chose to answer these statements of fact by accusing me of being an industry spokesman and not providing links. I do not link to common fact and any of these points can be verified by a simple Google search.

You also accused me of making ad hominem arguments demonstrating that you do not understand the term.

I would suggest you respond to these points before throwing a random and disjointed list at this group without clarifying why you think it is relevant.

LikeLike

In answer to S. Foster,

In my opinion, three parasitic sub-cultures have grown around nuclear technology, both artifacts of Cold War paranoia: first is the radiation protection industry and professionals working in the field that depend on the continued acceptance of the the linear-non-threshold dose-response model, despite the fact that this model has been thoroughly discredited on multiple occasions.

Studies of atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, showed a linear relationship between cancer mortality and high doses of radiation as a result fallout hysteria became one of the themes of the times. The situation was not helped by lurid stories of several high dose incidents reported in the press. Health Physics and Genetics were supported lavishly by radiation fears, and Radiation Biology became the most intensely researched science in history. Health physicists soon learned that their livelihood depended upon scaring funds out of governments and science became irrelevant if the paymasters wanted to mislead the public about the hazards of radiation. If a particular study failed to find evidence of radiation’s ill effects, the data was simply forced into the LNT model. The evidence against the linear model and for radiation hormesis has been solid as a rock for 40 years. Yet the LNT model prevails. Why? Follow the money and the politics. The health-physics community is divided, roughly along the lines of who puts money before principles.

The second is the nonproliferation bureaucracy. It has no more of an evidentiary foundation than the above, but is similar in that a host of people depend on its assumptions for their jobs. The claim is that without constant monitoring and inspection of civil nuclear facilities and restrictive rules on international trade, most countries would chose to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal. The track record of proliferation to date, however, has been both limited and slow. The historical record does not support dire predictions, simply because those predictions were made without a clear understanding of both the economics and the military utility of nuclear weapons. The fact is that most nations nether need or want these devices, and those that do can obviously run roughshod over whatever international control exist.

The third is the antinuclear movement and its fellow travelers, that depend on a constant flow of donations from its supporters. A sort of an éminence grise has emerged as well over the past few years in the form of fossil fuel lobbyists particularly from the natural gas and coal sectors that have been overtly funding elements of this last group to smear the nuclear option at every turn and maintain its image as a dangerous and fickle technology in the public’s mind. This as part of a strategy of using their right to employ money-amplified free speech to persuade the world that man cannot possibly change the world’s climate and that continued use of their products is mankind’s wisest course of action.

These groups are the ones that benefit from the hysteria that surrounds nuclear energy, these are the forces we are up against.

LikeLike

“At any rate you have not shown my (sic) where I was wrong in our earlier exchange. To recap:

Response:

Para 1: Environmental agencies in Australia are charged with conserving, preserving, protecting, enhancing and managing the environment and are vested with discretion to do so. The catastrophic incidents of pollution in Australia have revealed that these agencies have failed (for 40 years) to exercise their discretion appropriately.

The failure to regulate and more particularly, enforce those regulations, are of particular concern to those who are more au fait with the system than you.

The regulators have moved from a “command and control” system to one of “persuasion.” Irresponsible companies which have created these catastrophic events rarely have their operations suspended and are rarely charged.

And while the “Johnnys cum-lately” boast of their recently acquired knowledge on CO2 and remain asleep at the wheel, there are several catastrophic events this century which are of grave concern and these events will impact on the environment and human health for decades or centuries.

A parliamentary enquiry committee into a recent environmental catastrophe reported: “The Committee has identified major failings in the Department of Environment’s industry regulation function and shortcomings in other regulatory agencies.

The Committee believes that these regulatory failures combined with irresponsible and possibly the unlawful conduct of (blank), (blank) and (blank) exposed workers and the community to unacceptable and avoidable health and environmental risks. Industry regulation by the Department of Environment and Conservation is grossly inadequate.”

I shall outline the recent failures of U mine operators to protect the environment and humans at a later date.

Para 2: Old timers who continue to allude to coal mining are out of touch. Move along, move along. The very reason for this debate is to investigate ways to close down coal mining. However, Professor Brook advised that coal fired plants emit 100 – 300 times more radiation than nuclear plants. This grossly unregulated industry’s criminal activities are relevant to the contents of Para 1 and perhaps you may explain why regulators have not enforced pollution prevention control on the coal industry?

Rather they have permitted the release of RA emissions (and potentially the endocrine disruptors – organochlorines) merely to appease industry thus contaminating humans, animals and the environment. Furthermore, the coal mining industry sells its radioactive fly ash to farmers as a mix in fertiliser and as a compost at nurseries so the public can contaminate their own gardens.

Industries are permitted to leave mountains of fly ash on-site to be swept away by the prevailing winds. Perhaps this is of less concern to some because commercial food crops in Australia are now fertilised with human faeces (biosolids or sludge). And you, in your naiveté, believe the nuclear industry is competently regulated?

contd………

LikeLike

Crikey I’d picked you for a sheila myself.

LikeLike

@DV82XL: Thank you for the very interesting and illuminating response. That’s what I was looking for to understand better the anti-nuke set. From my perspective, it really does look like an *industry* dedicated to spreading fear and misinformation about nuclear power.

@W&W: I recommend “The Authoritarians” by Prof. R. Altemeyer (downloadable text), and check out http://www.theocracywatch.org. If you dont’ understand the power of religious movements, the susceptibility of many to the lure of authoritarian thinking to control what people believe, you will after you read those resources. It is terrifying stuff, shockingly eye opening. When I see someone immune to evidence, immune to reason, immune to science-based arguments, I see what Prof. Altemeyer calls the “authoritarian mind” in action. To such people all that matters is to KNOW without doubt that THEIR position is RIGHT, facts to the contrary be damned. The only way to avoid becoming prey to such a way of thinking, and those who would exploit it, is to demand facts, verify, think very critically, stick to scientific reasoning and let it lead to where it may REGARDLESS of your emotional attachments or preconceived ideas.

The more I studied the science of nuclear power and radiation, the more I came to realize that all the hysteria against it is just that – hysteria, with the whiff of fact fudging, sophistry and propaganda. In the context of our global climate emergency, those selling such hysteria are engaging in a crime against the environment and a crime against future generations. We have to get serious about realistic solutions that can safely displace carbon on a HUGE scale and INCREASE the availability of energy to developing nations at the same time, and that means new nuclear power that is safe, secure and sustainable. I’m always willing to be convinced of any workable alternatives on that scale. So far, nada…

LikeLike