Categories
Emissions Nuclear Scenarios

Nuclear century outlook – crystal ball gazing by the WNA

I’ve talked recently on BNC about various recent energy plans. which seek to replace fossil fuels with low-carbon alternatives. On the whole, I’ve been left dissatisfied. For instance, there was the Scientific American article ‘A path to sustainable energy by 2030‘ (technology = renewables only, critiqued by me here) and the UK Royal Academy of Engineering study Generating the future: UK energy systems fit for 2050 (technology = renewables + nuclear, critiqued here). Neither pass muster, even when evaluated on general principles.

In this post, I’ll describe a third study. It provides a contrast to the other two, because it doesn’t start with the (preordained) premise that renewables and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage WILL together do the heavy lifting. Instead, it focuses on nuclear power deployment as the primary ‘decarbonisation silver bullet’ (although other techs do play a role — perhaps an overly generous one at that). This energy map was developed by the World Nuclear Association and is called the ‘Nuclear Century Outlook‘ (NCO).

The NCO projects out 90 years, to the year 2100 — I use the term ‘project’ loosely, as really, any forecast that stretches beyond about two decades will axiomatically fall into the ‘crystal ball gazing’ category. But that’s not meant to dismiss the value in such an exercise (or others that attempt to take the long-term view). I just want to make it clear that any such long-term projection represent a ‘storyline’ (sensu IPCC SRES) rather than a ‘prediction’.

The aim of the NCO is to conceptualize nuclear power’s potential worldwide growth in the 21st Century, based on country-by-country low/high build-out assessments. Nationally aggregated data are given in tabular form here, for 2030, 2060 and 2100.  The figures in this table are updated as new information comes to hand (for instance China recently upgraded their 2030 forecast from 150 to 200 GWe, and India’s 2060 goal from 350 to 500 GWe). The low/high projections are considered boundaries of a possible domain, with “low reflecting the minimum nuclear capacity expected and the high assuming a full policy commitment to nuclear power“. The forecast includes nations that currently use nuclear power, those which have expressed intention to entering the market (e.g. UAE, Egypt, Poland, Turkey) and potential future entrants (including Australia and Italy). Here is the overall projection:

As you can see, the domain (in green) is wide (!), with the lower bound approaching 2 TWe by 2100, and the high bound being >11 TWe (that’s the equivalent of 11,000 reactors, worldwide, of the size of an AP1000). To quote:

This order-of-magnitude estimate of future Clean-Energy Need gains credence from an alternative calculation. Today the IEA judges that that nuclear power’s 370 GW represent 6.3% of world primary energy consumption. If so, world energy consumption corresponds to the output from 5,875 Nuclear GW. If total primary energy consumption doubles by 2050, 85% of energy must be supplied by clean technologies in order to attain a 70% GHG cut from 2000 levels. On that basis, Clean-Energy Need in 2050 would be 9,990 Nuclear GW.

Here’s how the projections line up with the NCO’s anticipated demand curve (which factors in population growth and some serious energy efficiency):

Bold stuff, no doubt. Here’s my brief take — we can explore the pros/cons of the forecast further in the comments section.

Important features of the NCO include its explicit recognition of the need to deal urgently with the climate problem (and associated issues of environmental degradation), and the imperatives of a relatively rapid replacement of transportation fuels, whilst meeting the changing needs of the developing world. Some problems include a lack of transparency about how the low/high scenarios were parameterised, and overall, a lack of ambition for some countries — and for the worldwide 2050 target — which stands in juxtaposition to the grand ‘vision’ goals (in short, 3.7 TWe by 2060 just ain’t gonna cut it fellas). At least they admit the problem of this ‘clean-energy gap’ in the period 2000 to 2080 (red area of the above chart) — it’s just a pity they don’t really seek a way to plug it.

One underlying problem with the NCO forecast — a problem that is common to all large-scale energy outlooks I’ve seen — is the lack of explicit detail about technology type/role and their relative contribution to overall system reliability. Like other plans like those cited at the top of this post, the NCO also sets aside the (ultimately crucial) question of cost — which makes it difficult to assess feasibility and likelihood. Now don’t get me wrong — I can understand their reticence to tackle this thorny problem.  The ‘nuclear renaissance’ might well be gearing up big time, but hasn’t really produced the goods yet, and this makes ‘settled down costs’ tough to gauge, even for Gen III nuclear power, let alone Gen IV. But leaving economics out does beg the question of how realistic it is assess relative fractions of nuclear vs fossil-CCS and ‘new renewables’. Indeed, it might be that some technologies never even make it to the starting gate, let alone see major commercial deployment, if allowed to compete on a cost-levelised playing field. Still, it’s worth keeping in mind. On that point, I’m co-authoring a technical paper with Martin Nicholson (lead author) on this very topic at present, which we plan to submit to a peer-reviewed journal within a month or so.

What of the technological mix WITHIN the nuclear domain? For instance, what is the likely proportion of Gen II, Gen III and Gen IV technologies, and how will that mix of contributions change over time? Which of the current Gen III designs will see the major deployment in the 2010 to 2030 period? What would such a massive nuclear build-out mean for uranium demand? How might nuclear power growth rates be constrained (or otherwise) by the availability of fissile material? On these seemingly rather important points, the NCO is, alas, silent. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible to make an informed guess as to the answers…

In an upcoming post I’ll try to do just that (for a teaser, read this and this), and will propose a plan that’s even bolder than the NCO high scenario. But, before I write more on this technology breakdown, I need to add one more post, on fissile inventories, to the IFR Facts & Discussion series. That’s next.

Okay, for now, I want to hear your view on the NCO storyline. Shoot.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

By Barry Brook

Barry Brook is an ARC Laureate Fellow and Chair of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania. He researches global change, ecology and energy.

460 replies on “Nuclear century outlook – crystal ball gazing by the WNA”

DV82XL how small could a CANDU be made? I’m a long way from a nuclear expert, but don’t the Adams engines use non-recyclable pebbles for fuel? I guess CANDUs can’t run as hot, so can’t use gas turbines.

Like

Watching horse racing on TV I was amazed when the tipsters launched into a 10 minute tirade against coal mining in the Upper Hunter Valley. I understand that may also be the subject of Monday’s ABC ‘Four Corners’ program.

Add that to fatal mining accidents in China and the US, the coal ship still run aground on the Great Barrier Reef and mountaintop removal in the US. If there truly were centuries of coal left it should be easy to dig in less sensitive locations. It lends credence to a predicted global coal peak circa 2030 with Chinese production peaking in the next decade.

I suggest all cheap fossil fuels could run out earlier than we think in the order of oil, gas and coal. Already I believe brown coal generators are resisting secret government overtures to switch to gas fired baseload. Nonetheless I still think we should penalise fossil carbon now while it’s cheap to smooth the inevitable transition.

Like

Ewen and DV82XL:

I’m sure you’re both correct in your comments relating to the political problems relating to the widespread adoption of nuclear power.

However, from a UK perspective, matters are definitely moving in the right direction. Upthread, Peter Lang was discussing the difficulties and uncertainties associated with energy infrastucture planning, contrasting the longevity of power plants with that of parliamentary terms and pointing to the need for a regular programme of investment.

It occurs to me that, given the parlous financial state of many Western economies and the backlog of investment needed for energy infrastructure, many politicians would be glad to hand over the responsibility for the latter to independent bodies. In this way, they could effectively wash their hands of the responsibility for taking decisions which are likely to be unpopular. Furthermore, they may feel less constrained by the pressures arising from lobbyists and pressure groups.

It was this sort of thinking that led Gordon Brown to hand over control of inflation to the Bank of England. The Labour Party had always had a reputation for financial irresponsibility and this one measure – seemingly removing itself from temptation – won it a lot of support. This was warmly applauded at the time and seems to have worked well, judged by inflation alone. The Bank relies on advice of “12 Wise Men” who meet on a monthly basis and whose discussions leading to recommendations for Bank Rates are published retrospectively. These advisors are professional economists. Unfortunately, Brown also removed the powers of the Bank of England to regulate the financial activities of other banks and financial institutions and gave them to a so-called Financial Services Authority. Brown and the latter should take most of the responsibility for our current economic crisis. The Conservatives are going to wind up the FSA and repatriate its powers to the Bank.

Britain also has an Energy Regulatory Body. This has repeatedly warned of a looming future energy crisis arising out of lack of investment but its essential role is to strike a balance between the interests of energy suppliers and energy users.

I would like to see a revamped Energy Body handed the responsibility for planning and delivering energy infrastructre as well as for regulation. The new Conservative model for the Bank might give an indication of what is required.

While I may merely be expressing pious hopes and, no doubt, Peter would brand me as naive, I do think that current circumstances provide the best opportunity to de-politicise energy infrastructure planning.

Like

Lawrence, on 10 April 2010 at 13.59 Said:

“DV82XL how small could a CANDU be made? I’m a long way from a nuclear expert, but don’t the Adams engines use non-recyclable pebbles for fuel? I guess CANDUs can’t run as hot, so can’t use gas turbines.”

AECL currently offers the CANDU 3 which is a 450 MWe unit.

The smallest CANDU ever built was the Nuclear Power Demonstrator (NPD), this reactor commenced operation in 1962, supplying 20 MW of electricity to the Ontario Hydro system, and served as a working prototype of all later CANDU nuclear generating stations. The first commercial CANDU 1 was the 200MWe NGS at Douglas Point, Ontario which was the design sold to India for their first units. They have made some improvement on this design, and it is the one they are now trying to export.

CANDU’s probably could not be modified to have a gas a working fluid. The British Magnox designs do, running on CO2.

@Douglas Wise – I would not presume to comment on the situation in the UK which may be different from others in this regard, however if it is as you say, then you are very fortunate. The rest of us still have to contend with fossil-fuel interests, and that isn’t going to go away of its own accord.

Like

DV82XL and Peter Lang

DV8, I was not suggesting that the UK is in a fortunate position except insofar as the acceptance of the need for ,at least, limited nuclear power by both major political parties with little overt public opposition. This is almost solely due to our unfortunate position in most other respects relating to public indebtedness and an ageing energy infrastructure.

In case it is of interest, I will provide a few quotes from the Business Section of my today’s newspaper. There are two generating companies wishing to build NPPs in the UK – EON and EDF:

“EDF has lobbied hard for a carbon floor price, which could add an estimated £40 a year to energy bills”.
“And David Cameron, the Tory leader, gave his backing to the policy last month in the hope that it will kick-start the construction of a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain”
“At the moment, companies must buy carbon allowances to cover every tonne of emissions – theoretically rewarding those who invest in clean energy and penalising heavy polluters.”
“But at a price of of around £11.80, it is cheaperfor companies simply to buy the permits than build expensive nuclear or clean coal plants.”
“The Conservatives would set a fixed lower limit – of, say, £30.50 per tonne – to support the price of carbon allowances.”
“But Dr Golby (CEO of EON) argues instead for a “low carbon obligation”,
“This would force suppliers of energy to buy a certain percentage of their power from low carbon sources, regardless of whether they are wind farms, nuclear plants or clean coal.”
“Energy companies are frustrated are frustrated by the fact that renewable energy is subsidised to a greater extent than nuclear.”
“”For me to build nuclear power stations, I need confidence people are going to buy the product at an acceptable price”, said Dr Golby”

In a separate interview, Golby states that he believes that it is still just about possible for the UK to stimulate an ambitious £200 billion of low carbon generation and reduce emissions in line with EU targets over the next decade – if it hurries.
Like the other big energy bosses, Dr Golby takes fright at the mention of draconian suggestions, made by the regulator, Ofgem, of a return to the old days of a centralised energy buyer, amid concerns over potential shortages.
Golby states that he is not a great supporter of a carbon floor price , because it seems to be a tax and that money doesn’t always go to the purpose for which it was intended.

For interest, EON is German owned and EDF is French. Peter, I think Golby’s views would be to your taste.

I send these quotes to demonstrate, if nothing else, that the nuclear debates at the political and business levels in the UK and Australia are very different.

Like

The problem with EON is that they maximise their rising profits every year and still continue building coal plants.
Just stop permitting new coal plants and force them into another direction.

Like

The problem with EON is that they maximise their rising profits every year and still continue building coal plants.

Would that have anything to do with Germany’s stupid nuclear phaseout legislation, and the need to build a couple of dozen coal plants to cover what the fig leaf of wind and solar can’t cover?

Like

They could built wind instead of coal.

Besides what is stupid about the phase out? It is a legit political decission by a democratic society that you should learn to accept.
Not all countries can have regimes (or absolutes) like China or the UAE and do what they want when they want without any transparency.

Like

@Heavyweather – how often must you be shown the facts on wind and solar before you understand that they simply cannot provide anything other than a token amount of real energy?

As for a legitimate political decision made by a democratic society, that’s fine until the detritus from their coal plants begins to impact everyone else.

Like

It is relatively simple for Anglosphere residents in Australia and Canada at a long distance from the Ukraine and currently blogging on BNC to pontificate retroactively on western European reactions to Chernobyl in 1986.

Suffice it to say that it impacted Italian, Austrian and German law, and even the Austrian Constitution, in respect of civilian atomic energy. That impact has been sustained ever since. Note that windborne fallout from the defective Soviet NPP design at Chernobyl caused great fear and anxiety at the time, compounded by the secretiveness of USSR officials.

Note that in France, the State found it expedient at the time to black out news of Chernobyl, even though it might have assumed that this would not be necessary, given the generally positive attitude to NPPs on the part of French citizens.

The notion that German power companies such as Eon or RWE would suddenly drop coal-fired stations in favour of NPPs if German pro-renewables law were revoked fails to consider the business strategies of such companies. They operate in jurisdictions outside Germany. Eon for example is building CANDUs in Romania.

Click to access RWE_Atomplaene_Maerz_09.pdf

states by the way that CANDU’s weak point as a design is its reactivity (?). That is, when coolant is lost, it allegedly behaves like an RBMK. Comments?

Like

DV8
If it was like you want to make everybody believe there would not be that much wind power all over the world.
Norway would not built sea cables to store European wind energy and nobody would buy turbines.

You seem to like coal more than wind and you also seem to like the fact that EON is making record profits while building coal plants.
Theres nothing wrong in forcing them to built windturbines instead even if it cuts in their dirty record profits.

Like

Heavyweather, – show me supporting coal anywhere. I don’t. But you seem to think you can make all of the technical issues with wind go away just by building more. That is because not only are you an ignoramus, you are a fool.

We have discussed this here to the point of tedium, and you ether cannot understand, or will not except wind’s limitations and persist in believing it is a matter of evil business practices, and not physical limitations that wind is not replacing coal.

I am not going to bother to rehearse the reasons you are wrong again, simply because it is plain you cannot be convinced to change your mind.

This discussion is over.

Like

Besides what is stupid about the phase out? It is a legit political decission by a democratic society that you should learn to accept.

Stupidity remains stupidity, be it supported by one person or one hundred million. What is stupid about it is that the Germans committed themselves to phasing out the one form of power which can adequetly provide them with reliable power, and as a result must continue to rely on coal. Wind and solar cannot help bridge the gap in supply.

Like

Not all countries can have regimes (or absolutes) like China or the UAE and do what they want when they want without any transparency.

Without transparency? I reckon it’s transparently obvious that the UAE determined that it was much better to sell their oil and gas overseas for good hard cash than to burn it at home for power after spending good cash to build a couple of useless solar stations and pretending that’s where all their power came from.

Like

Did Grant King suggest:

removing all distortions in the energy market? NO!

removing the Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets? NO!

removing all tax incentives for fossil fuels? NO!

removing all impediments to nuclear? NO!

So I wonder what his agenda might be? Anyone have any suggestions?

Like

This just in:

British Green Party Candidate Chris Goodall accepts nuclear power in Mix, cites David Mackay with approval

Scroll down and check his comment in the body of posts responding to his original article.

Like many of the readers of the Guardian web pages, I am a big enthusiast for Prof David MacKay’s rigorous approach to the issue of how we build a portfolio of electricity and other resources to provide the UK with 120 kWh a day per person. He thinks that we probably need nuclear and I don’t disagree with him. (For the avoidance of doubt, this is NOT Green Party policy and remains a minority opinion within the Party).

Like

“He thinks that we probably need nuclear and I don’t disagree with him. (For the avoidance of doubt, this is NOT Green Party policy and remains a minority opinion within the Party).”

Now that’s interesting. I can only wonder if the anti-nuclear force is strong enough to initiate a spontaneous fissioning of the BGP.

Like

We may well ask the same question about the BBGP (Bob Brown Green Party) and the ALP.

Well… I don’t think the ALP would fracture over the issue. They’ll always just be pro or anti nuclear power, and stomp in internal dissent either way. Before declaring the Australian Greens to be in peril of splitting over nuclear power, I’d want some indication of serious internal debates over it, or prominent members publicly calling for a rethink of their anti-nuke position.

Like

Tom Blees tagging nuclear opponents “environists” is an insult to the majority of Australian citizens and a very good reason why this forum preaches only to the converted.

A glaring omission on this forum is the stark reality that Australia’s regulators are not up to the task of regulating a nuclear industry and could not detect a beer in a brewery – nor do they wish to.

Why would one expect stringent regulations in a nuclear industry when Australian regulators in the 21st century remain incapable of regulating any pollutant industry to protect human health and the environment?:

1: Lead (Lead poisoning of Esperance)

2. Mercury (Kalgoorlie contamination),

3. Hazardous waste industries (the largest chemical fire in history at the Bellevue hazardous waste plant and its dire ecological ramifications)

4. ERA’s Ranger mine ( poisoning workers with radioactive drinking and bathing water 400 times in excess of “normal” levels )

5. Ranger mine (tailings dam currently leaking an estimated 100,000 litres every day of toxic solution (with impunity) containing all radionuclides, into the Kakadu surrounds).

6. In 2003, a Senate committee found that regulation of the Ranger mine was “flawed, confusing and inadequate”.

7. And lest we forget, I’m reminded of Ansto’s recent fudging of their online poll where they changed the “No” votes to “Yes.”

8. “Over fifty years ago the WHO’s assembly voted into force an obscure but important agreement with the IAEA – founded just two years before in 1957.

“The impact of this agreement has been to give the IAEA an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power and so prevent the WHO from playing its proper role in investigating and warning of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health.”

A “brave new climate?” There is nothing new or brave about a nuclear industry that pollutes with impunity or the spin from nuclear lobbyists, the IAEA or WNA – two of the very few agencies that continue publishing ‘glowing’ scientific reports, devoid of references.

Like

Webs and Weavers – I could list a similar collection of regulatory failure in Canada in the environmental domain, nevertheless we do manage to run a safe and effective public/private nuclear power industry.

I find it breathtaking that there are Australians that would publicly declaim that Canadians are better at them at anything other than eating snow. I have seen bar fights break out over less of a slight than what you are suggesting.

Like

“A “brave new climate?” There is nothing new or brave about a nuclear industry that pollutes with impunity or the spin from nuclear lobbyists…”

I always thought the blog title “Brave New Climate” refered to the issue of climate change, rather than anything to do with the nuclear industry. Welcome back, Helen.

By the way, what kinds of radionuclides would you expect to find in uranium mine tailings you wouldn’t find in the environment around a major uranium ore deposit in the first place?

Like

Peter Lang, on 15 April 2010 at 12.36 — A tax on carbon makes new CCGTs more cost effective than new coal burners. Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

Like

Webs and Weavers, the primary reason for nuclear advocacy on this forum is because it is the energy generation system with the lowest environmental impact. If you can describe an alternative power generation system that meets our energy needs and offers a better environmental outcome than nuclear power, I will abandon my support for nuclear power and advocate for your alternative.

So, can you describe your alternative energy infrastructure?

Like

Tom Blees tagging nuclear opponents “environists” is an insult to the majority of Australian citizens and a very good reason why this forum preaches only to the converted.

Rubbish. I believe the majority of Australians are now pro-nuclear, and most of those who are not will become so as soon as they understand the issues properly. The term is an insult to anti-nuke dinosaurs like Caldicott who have nothing but emotion to peddle in the name of their cause.

A glaring omission on this forum is the stark reality that Australia’s regulators are not up to the task of regulating a nuclear industry and could not detect a beer in a brewery – nor do they wish to.

Presumably you have some evidence for this assertion? From what I could determine during our recent visit tom ANSTO, the staff there are highly competent professionals, and our host made a point of mentioning that if Australia were to develop a nuclear power industry, they had all the expertise necessary to oversee the effort.

Why would one expect stringent regulations in a nuclear industry when Australian regulators in the 21st century remain incapable of regulating any pollutant industry to protect human health and the environment?:

1: Lead (Lead poisoning of Esperance)

2. Mercury (Kalgoorlie contamination),

3. Hazardous waste industries (the largest chemical fire in history at the Bellevue hazardous waste plant and its dire ecological ramifications)

4. ERA’s Ranger mine ( poisoning workers with radioactive drinking and bathing water 400 times in excess of “normal” levels )

5. Ranger mine (tailings dam currently leaking an estimated 100,000 litres every day of toxic solution (with impunity) containing all radionuclides, into the Kakadu surrounds).

6. In 2003, a Senate committee found that regulation of the Ranger mine was “flawed, confusing and inadequate”.

7. And lest we forget, I’m reminded of Ansto’s recent fudging of their online poll where they changed the “No” votes to “Yes.”

8. “Over fifty years ago the WHO’s assembly voted into force an obscure but important agreement with the IAEA – founded just two years before in 1957.

“The impact of this agreement has been to give the IAEA an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power and so prevent the WHO from playing its proper role in investigating and warning of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health.”

I’m not sure why you’re pointing to non-nuclear incidents. The safety record of the civilian nuclear power industry worldwide is superior to that of all other forms of power generation. There is no doubt Australia could effectively regulate a local nuclear power industry. Also, you may wish to provide some references or links to material backing your claims. You have been somewhat vague.

Like

Ewen Laver @ 9 April 2010 at 14.39 said:

What is the point of working on notional savings to the build costs and operational parameters of plants that are not yet politically acceptable? Doesn’t it make more sense to lay down a cost environment in which all externalities are internalised and then to argue for a solution based on best value per dollar of expenditure?

Until the principle that there is no free lunch is accepted, there will be a an interminable squabble over who pays for whose lunch and who gets the big salad.

You argue that we should implement the CPRS first and then the costs of clean electricity (e.g. nuclear) will come down because you believe the politics will make this happen.

I agree that the imposts on nuclear will be removed eventually, but I believe it will take decades. It will not happen until the population in the developed nations get over their aversion to nuclear. I expect it will take decades to remove the imposts on nuclear by following the route you advocate.

The alternative, that I support, is to tackle the imposts on nuclear that are causing the costs to be higher than they could and should be. I believe the best time to tackle this is while the population’s attention is on the need to reduce CO2 emissions.

If we implement the CPRS or carbon tax before we address the cost imposts on nuclear, we will ratchet up the base cost of electricity. The higher base will remain as a distortion for a very long time. This means a higher base cost for electricity than the cost would be without the CPRS or carbon tax. I’ve argued previously, it is a fundamentally wrong approach to strive to artificially raise the cost of electricity (see comment on externalities below). Raising the cost of electricity in the developed countries – the countries that lead in the development of new, lower cost technologies – will slow the rate that clean electricity replaces fossil fuels for heating and transport – not only in Australia but world wide. This will reduce the rate that electricity will be implemented across the developing world. Electrifying the developing world with clean electricity generation should be a primary goal if we want to maximise the rate of reducing emissions (compared with BAU) over the coming decades. To reduce emissions as fast as possible we should do all we can to reduce the cost of clean electricity, not raise it.

I understand your argument that we should include all externalities. In principle, I agree with you. However, there are limitations to what can be achieved in practice. And why just pick on the externalities for electricity generation or for fossil fuel use? And why just pick on the externalities of CO2? Picking winners is fraught with problems. It becomes fraught with picking winners based on what is the popular belief at the time. It is fraught with the influence of special interest groups such as WWF, Greenpeace, etc, and the ideological leanings of political parties, their leaders and their special interest groups.

It still seems to me that a CPRS or Carbon Tax will hide the real problems not help to solve them. It is avoidance. Governments can say they are building windmills, subsiding solar panels and implemented a price on carbon. That solves the political problem because the government is seen to be ‘doing something’. It does not address the fundamental problem – that the cost of clean electricity is artificially far too high because of four decades of bad policies – picking winner policies! The CPRS is a continuation of these picking winner policies. More bad policy.

The extract below is an example of one of the distortions we need to tackle directly, not sweep it under the carpet for another few decades.

I think we discussed this briefly before, but with a bit further thought I don’t see that a study of overseas nuclear regulatory systems and attempting to define the best would be of much use here. Here the federal government has its own history of regulation and how it sets up such things. Not that I have any expertise in such but a comparison with Australian air safety regulation (ATSB & CASA) would probably show what would be developed for nuclear, and from what I recall the history of air safety regulation in this country has not been an altogether happy or competent one. Perhaps this is because the tradition of federal governments of all stripes is to keep tight political control of things that could make them look bad, and air safety is certainly one of these and nuclear would be another. As such I would anticipate that the regulation in the nuclear sphere would be carried out by elements of the public service, an organisation which is designed to carry out the expressed or inferred wishes of the federal pollies and which places more emphasis on internal politics than technical expertise. As an indication of the latter I remind you of my friend who used to work at ARPANSA and did, for a time, run it – well he quit when he found that they had more lawyers on staff than engineers.

Like

This is a case where we can have our cake and eat it! We can have clean electricity and we can have it at a lower price than dirty electricity.

That is the key point. We don’t have to choose between cheap and dirty versus clean but more expensive.

To get clean, safe low cost electrcity, all we need to do is get rational!

I know that is a difficult thing to do politically. It requires somehow convincing the anti-nuclear groups to get rational! I realise how hard that is. We know who they are. They are led by the likes of Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, ACF, Ian Lowe, Mark Diesendorf. Mark Jacobson, Helen Caldicott, Amory Lovins, David Mills, etc. These groups are egged on by the renewable energy industries, the researchers and of course the coal and gas industries.

If we want a rational solution we need to convince the anti-nuclear groups to lead the change. I suggest the people on the BNC web site who are arguing for a CPRS and/or Carbon Tax, should do a U-turn and work on getting the anti-nuclear groups to U-turn to becoming enthusiastic advocates for nuclear. Not just advocates for nuclear, but advocates for removing all the impediments to nuclear as quickly as possible. They could begin by renouncing their support for mandatory renewable energy targets and subsidies for renewable energy.

Like

Peter

If we want a rational solution we need to convince the anti-nuclear groups to lead the change. I suggest the people on the BNC web site who are arguing for a CPRS and/or Carbon Tax, should do a U-turn and work on getting the anti-nuclear groups to U-turn to becoming enthusiastic advocates for nuclear. Not just advocates for nuclear, but advocates for removing all the impediments to nuclear as quickly as possible. They could begin by renouncing their support for mandatory renewable energy targets and subsidies for renewable energy.

This is exactly what I am doing. Not a day would go by when I don’t lobby a couple of people in authority or write a letter to a paper to make the case. Most recently today, I wrote in response to Christine Milne at The Drum, both emphasising my sympathy for the Greens position and explicitly arguing for them to have a pro-nuclear position, even though it was not on topic. Admittedly I didn’t put the case against MRET and RECs but I wanted it snappy and have put this in writing to Senator Milne before.

I can earnestly say there is no conversation in the public space where nuclear is relevant where I don’t put the case.

That said, I believe approaching full internalisation as rapidly as possible is the way to ensure our case is taken seriously and isn’t simply picking winners.

For the record, I don’t confine this idea to energy processes either.

Like

“I always thought the blog title “Brave New Climate” refered (sic) to the issue of climate change, rather than anything to do with the nuclear industry.”

Finrod – Thank you so much for confirming that the aggressive lobbying for nuclear energy has no relevance to climate change. Could you now advise the Australian public of the industry’s motives?

“By the way, what kinds of radionuclides would you expect to find in uranium mine tailings you wouldn’t find in the environment around a major uranium ore deposit in the first place?”

Finrod – Since you appear astonishingly ill-informed on the comparisons beween the radioactive emissions from an intact ore body and the radionuclides in a tailings dam, and also the significant different volumes of activity between uranium and radium 226, I have no intention of wasting valuable time in assisting a person who lacks the basic knowledge, necessary for a lay person to grasp the fundamentals of environmental toxicology.

“Also, you may wish to provide some references or links to material backing your claims. You have been somewhat vague”

No Finrod, I may not wish to waste time retrieving documented evidence to back my claims and it is not I who is “vague.” The literature is widely published and distributed, here in Australia (and beyond) so do try to keep up.

However, random links at hand refer to previous Items 1 – 8:

1. WA – Parliamentary – Education & Health Standing Committee – Inquiry into the Cause and Extent of lead pollution in the Esperance Area:

Page xxiv: “The Committee has identified major failings in DEC’s industry regulation.

Finding 18 Page xxxv: “Industry regulation by the Department of Environment and Conservation is grossly inadequate.”

3. Bellevue Chemical Fire: “The inquiry found the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Minerals and Energy had shown leniency towards waste control and at no time over the past decade had the plant complied with its licences”:

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:CQfIsd1odRkJ:abc.gov.au/news/stories/2003/04/13/831147.htm+bellevue+chemical+fire+parliamentary+enquiry&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

ERA’s Ranger uranium mine- miscellaneous:

“Energy Resources Australia has had 200 environmental incidents logged against Ranger uranium mine, and it was also the first mining company to be successfully prosecuted in the Northern Territory for environmental breaches.”

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=913

http://uranium-news.com/category/1-issues/page/5/

http://ntne.ws/articles/article.php?id=3722

Uranium tenements (approved and pending) in Western Australia and the resulting land grabs are prolific and bear little resemblance to the map provided by Barry Brook:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&t=h&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=101724410662104548145.0004757aca0e25c4e05e5

It is not up to me to prove the officially documented evidence correct. It is your responsibility to prove that it is not! Why not ask Jaborowski, radiation expert and climate sceptic who shills for the Heartland Institute?

Like

“I always thought the blog title “Brave New Climate” refered (sic) to the issue of climate change, rather than anything to do with the nuclear industry.”

Finrod – Thank you so much for confirming that the aggressive lobbying for nuclear energy has no relevance to climate change. Could you now advise the Australian public of the industry’s motives?

Now that’s just bizzare.

Like

Finrod – Since you appear astonishingly ill-informed on the comparisons beween the radioactive emissions from an intact ore body and the radionuclides in a tailings dam, and also the significant different volumes of activity between uranium and radium 226, I have no intention of wasting valuable time in assisting a person who lacks the basic knowledge, necessary for a lay person to grasp the fundamentals of environmental toxicology.

Really? When trying to present a case for something in a public forum, isn’t it standard practice to present the information backing the case up, rather than dismissing any request for clarification?

As it happens, I am aware that radium is more radioactive than uranium, and I’m sure that the radioactive emissions from intact ore bodies differ in intensity from those of radionuclides in tailings dams. I take it you see a problem with this.

Like

Ewen Laver,

I can earnestly say there is no conversation in the public space where nuclear is relevant where I don’t put the case.

I accept you are doing this, and I congratulate you for all your efforts.

The fundamental point we disagree on is whether or not raising the cost of electricity is good policy. I do not believe it is good policy for either the short or the long term. I believe implementing the CPRS, in the absence of a genuinely workable international ETS managed by the WTO, would be putting our effort in the wrong place. We would be “brushing the problem under the carpet”. The problem is of course, political not technical. The solution is available. Without impediments to nuclear we could have electricity from nuclear cheaper than from coal, and coal generators would be displaced over time. This would be the best way to remove the externalities from coal. The rate of displacing coal will depend on how much cheaper is nuclear. So our focus should be on removing the imposts on nuclear. We should not be distracted by smoke and mirrors solutions like CPRS.

That said, I believe approaching full internalisation as rapidly as possible is the way to ensure our case is taken seriously and isn’t simply picking winners.

This is a great ideal. But it is idealistic. It has proven difficult over the past 40 odd years. Taking a practical perspective, we’d have to conclude this will be a very long slow process if we want to take route.

And it definitely is a case of ‘picking winners’ unless we are internalising all externalities from all industries at the same rate. That will not happen. So why do we pick on one industry? To do so would be picking winners. Even within one industry, electricity generation, why would we pick on internalising CO2 emissions rather than the many other dangerous externalities that you frequently point to? If you answer this question, be careful your answer doesn’t attempt to ‘pick winners’ :)

For the record, I don’t confine this idea to energy processes either.

I recognise that that is your position. But is it really practical?

Like

I think it is practical, thought I’d want the right to a variety of tools and the right to split internalisation between regulatory imposition and monetisation.

Some measures might be best to simply require as part of the operating environment of the system, whereas others might best be charged for and remediation/restitution then supported from these funds. Others might require a cap and trade type system with penalties for people who failed to stay within the cap. In some cases we could allow the businesses to pick their mix to suit themselves and their own structure for approaching internalisation.

Like

Excellent selection of red herrings Finrod and superb side-step soft shoe shuffling. I do believe history has and will reveal which one of us is mangling and obfuscating the evidence.

And my, your mugshot reminds me of the infamous John Costella notorious for his climategate ‘revelations.’

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/

Wouldn’t you agree? You’re not he, are you?

Like

Wouldn’t you agree? You’re not he, are you?

Yes, that’s right. I’m the infamous John Costella, notorious for my climategate ‘revelations’. I’ve been making arguments for nuclear power based on the need to reduce CO2 emissions on account of climate change just to throw people off my trail.

I guess I shouldn’t have put that picture of myself up as my gravatar. Bit of an own goal, that one.

Like

And my, your mugshot reminds me of the infamous John Costella notorious for his climategate ‘revelations.’

You should get your eyes checked, Helen.

Like

Just so I can’t be accused of seriously pretending to be someone else, I hereby state for the public record that I am not John Costella, and that my previous assertion to be that individual was pure sarcasm.

Like

“Just so I can’t be accused of seriously pretending to be someone else, I hereby state for the public record that I am not John Costella, and that my previous assertion to be that individual was pure sarcasm.”

Right you are Finrod. May I now state for the record that I am not “Helen” as you insist and your previous assertion (and that of John D Morgan’s) that I am “Helen” was pure sarcasm and vitriol, meant to demean the debate?

And I do offer an apology Finrod for my assertion that you resembled Costella. It must have been the hairstyle……errrr….. ummm….or something….!

Like

This thread has diverted off course!

My question is a bit off the main course of the thread, but closer than hair styles.

Q1. What are the main imposts to converting to clean, safe electricity in Australia at a cost less than coal?

Q2. What steps would have to be taken to remove those imposts?

Anyone?

Like

May I now state for the record that I am not “Helen” as you insist and your previous assertion (and that of John D Morgan’s) that I am “Helen” was pure sarcasm and vitriol, meant to demean the debate.

So you deny you are Helen Caldicott? Why didn’t you do this months ago after DV82XL speculated that’s who you are? There’s nothing inherently unlikely about that assumption. Your polemical style is indistinguishable from hers. In fact, I’m not convinced by your denial. But never mind. What’s up with these radionuclides you’re so concerned about? And just by the way, what is your prefered energy generation technology if it isn’t nuclear?

Like

“Why didn’t you do this months ago after DV82XL speculated that’s who you are?”

Finrod – DV82XL’s and your unsubstantiated attack was merely a subterfuge to gag opponents of nuclear energy and who I am, is not your business or that of the snarling dogs guarding the gate to the crusty old codgers’ nuclear club.

Did your mothers ever instruct you to clean up your mess before making another or were you just as delusional as prepubescent litterbugs?

The nuclear industry has a belching tailpipe and its doors have fallen off and there’s a mess everywhere.

The disappearance of yet another nuclear physicist in Canada is curious and so is Rio Tinto’s Rossing uranium mine JV with the government of Iran.

The US has 104 nuclear reactors and is the largest polluter per capita on the planet. Canada has 18 reactors and is coming second last on the CCPI and Canadian miner, Barrick Gold continues to pollute from Africa to the Amazon.

http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/local/2010/4/19/35432/Hundreds-demand-Barrick-Golds-exit-from-the-country

The excavation site housing the U beaut Gen III dud, Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor, is the size of 55 football fields and the reactor is three-and-a-half years behind schedule and 75 percent over budget. Some 3,000 construction deficiencies have been identified.

There have been a string of serious problems and the safety regulator has questioned the designs for the reactor’s nerve centre – the Instrumentation and Control system.

France’s discredited nuclear pin-up girl, Areva, offers the usual implausible excuses while they fiddle with the unknown, manufacturing more stuff ups than Mr Bean.

Generation 1V reactors are the nuclear club’s Utopia for gobbling up the waste but they’re non-existent – a nuclear wet dream for the old codgers.

Meanwhile and despite the 443 nuclear reactors, Planet Earth is grumbling but the nuclear shills put their hands over their ears while telling lies to each other and fail to acknowledge that 60% of CO2 emissions are not from electricity generation.

You can put lipstick on a pig but do you know what they say about a pig?:

Like

Helen – Hyperbole like that may play well to the Chardonnay swilling posers in Vermont, but here it seen for the rubbish that it is. It’s insulting to the extreme that you would try to float nonsense like that in this forum. Even the regular antinukes here have more intelligence and less gall than that.

You are Helen Caldicott, or you are one of her disciples, there is a commonality in rhetoric here that is transparent, to say the least.

Like

Finrod – DV82XL’s and your unsubstantiated attack was merely a subterfuge to gag opponents of nuclear energy and who I am, is not your business or that of the snarling dogs guarding the gate to the crusty old codgers’ nuclear club.

So you regard being identifying as Helen Caldicott (correctly or otherwise) as an attack? Interesting.

Here is the website of another few members of the Crusty Old Codgers’ Nuclear Club. Best you head over and berate them for their partiarchal ways:

http://www.popatomic.org/www.popatomic.org/home.html

Like

Webs and Weavers, the question still stands. Regardless of what you may think about nuclear power, what alternative method of powering society do you think is better, in terms of its environmental impacts?

Like

Further to John Morgan’s question, Webs & Weavers, I note that you say:

Meanwhile and despite the 443 nuclear reactors, Planet Earth is grumbling but the nuclear shills put their hands over their ears while telling lies to each other and fail to acknowledge that 60% of CO2 emissions are not from electricity generation.

So what is your solution to the other 60% of emissions. It cannot be wind/solar electricity, but this would be ruled out on the same grounds with which you rule out nuclear. (By the way, my nuclear solution, and that of most others I suspect, does in fact cover the vast majority of the non-electricity-generation emissions, via production of synthetic fuels using nuclear electricity or process heat, CHP, desalination, etc.)

Like

I will stick to what’s presented, not who presents it, nome-de-plume or otherwise.

Web Weavers writes:

“The nuclear industry has a belching tailpipe and its doors have fallen off and there’s a mess everywhere”

Why don’t you just say they feed babies to the reactor and enslave children in India? This is crap, you know it, and now over the past decade, most of the world is getting to know it. It is not a belching tailpipe and it’s not a mess anywhere, really.

“The US has 104 nuclear reactors and is the largest polluter per capita on the planet.”

Astounding lie. You don’t even attempt to justify it. Baby eating again? By way… “per capita” compared to what exactly? If you are going to debate here the seriousness of nuclear energy, pro- or con-, you ought to dispense with the Harvey Wasserman science fiction projections and deal with reality. Your side is slowly losing and *part* of the reason are the ridiculous arguments such as you raise that the average person is beginning to see through.

D. Walters
San Francisco

Like

By way… “per capita” compared to what exactly?

She means that the US has the largest per capita emissions of CO2 and various other chemical pollutants (I’m not actually sure that’s true), and the US also happpens to have 104 civilian NPPs. She thus invites people to connect these two factoids without including any confusing details.

Like

Factually, the US is the 9th highest emitter of CO2, behind several Gulf States and Luxembourg, although the original statement was a more general generic “largest polluter”.

If the US is the largest polluter, but only the ninth largest CO2 polluter this suggests that it is performing better in CO2 terms than for other metrics. That will be in part due to those 104 reactors.

Like

“(By the way, my nuclear solution, and that of most others I suspect, does in fact cover the vast majority of the non-electricity-generation emissions, via production of synthetic fuels using nuclear electricity or process heat, CHP, desalination, etc.”

Good stuff Barry Brook though your proposal remains open to challenge however, I am not inspired to waste time on this forum alerting you to the omissions. However, could you be more specific and give me an ETA for the production of synthetic fuel use in nuclear electricity?

Please advise if you consider Australia’s regulatory limits on tritium in drinking water acceptable:

BqL Tritium limits in drinking water:

Canada: 7,000

EU: 1004

Finland: 30,000

Russia: 7,700

Switzerland 10,000

US: 740

WHO: 10,000

Australia 76,103

D Walters of San Francisco – The US EPA advise that “Over 1,000 United States locations, including both operational and abandoned sites, are contaminated with radiation. The contamination may be found in the air, water, and soil, as well as equipment and buildings.”

Rather than acting as a nuclear lobbyist in faraway places, would you not consider it more patriotic to clean up your own backyard first?

Like

Correction in previous post, due to superscript failure.

Tritium limits for the EU should read 100 (4)

Like

Webs and Weavers, should I take it that you’re happy with the current coal fired electricity system? I assume your prefer coal fired power to nuclear power?

Like

Rather than acting as a nuclear lobbyist in faraway places, would you not consider it more patriotic to clean up your own backyard first?

Rather than making a pest of herself in Vermont, shouldn’t Helen Caldicott concentrate on reversing the damage her stupid anti-nuclear activism has caused in Australia?

Like

“The US EPA advise that “Over 1,000 United States locations, including both operational and abandoned sites, are contaminated with radiation. The contamination may be found in the air, water, and soil, as well as equipment and buildings.””

That sounds alarming. Not as alarming as this though:

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/search?q=taiwan

The relevent passage reads:

“There are many places in the world such as Kerala in India or Yellowstone Park in the USA where natural background radiation is far above the level the “official consensus” says is dangerous, without any measurable ill effects over many thousands of years. Studies of Radon in homes have been done repeatedly because they repeatedly find the “official” wrong answer – that high levels of Radon correlate with good health. There is other evidence but the most indisputable, because it is almost a classic experiment, albeit accidental, occurred in Taiwan. A block of 180 flats were built there in 1983 with steel contaminated by radioactive cobalt 60 which has a half life of 5.5 years. When this was discovered, 20 years & 10,000 inhabitants, later, the radiation was largely gone but the records of who had lived there & how much they must have been exposed to were easily calculable. According to the no lower threshold “consensus” there should have been a massive increase in cancers. In fact cancers were down to 3.6% of prevailing Taiwanese rates.

The alleged “consensus” has only been maintained by a blanket refusal to notice this & other conclusive proofs. I can say from personal experience that newspapers eager to push any sort of scare story from the global ice age to breast enhancements without any evidence, have overwhelmingly refused to report this clear & unambiguous proof. That may make a consensus but certainly not a scientific one.”

Like

Webs and Weavers,

Why do you concern yourself with all these ‘down in the weed’ stats instead of looking at the overall safety of nuclear compared with the alternatives?

As I understand it, nuclear is far safer than the alternatives when compared over the full life cycle. In fact, I understand nuclear energy to date – over the last 55 years – has demonstrated it is some 10 to 100 times safer than coal, and improving all the time – just like air travel is improviing all the time.

Can you see the big picture or are you entrenched in fighting for an idelogical belief?

I would even advocate backing off what I consider excessive safety requirements if that enabled us to roll out nuclear power more rapidly across the world.

Like

Webs and Weavers, in an earlier post, made reference to the ANSTO survey which aimed to gain determine the level of support for nuclear power. The survey was corrupted by a sudden influx of ‘No’ votes. The sudden influx of votes was clearly organised by an anti-nuclear group.

This following email was forwarded to me today and gives some insight into the types of people and organisations involved in this sort of activity. Mark Diesendorf is on the public payroll and is a renewable energy researcher at Uni of NSW. He is also active in ACF and has been a long time anti-nuclear activist. He often appears on the ABC as their expert on nuclear energy!!

From: Mark Diesendorf
m.diesendorf@unsw.edu.au>
Date: 7 April 2010 14:01
Subject: [GRCO] FW: nuclear power poll
To: climate
grassroots_climate_oz@yahoogroups.com>

Hi

A poll being run by Sky News
http://www.skynews.com.au/
is asking if
people support nuclear power in Australia.

So far the pro-nukes people are in front… get online and voice your
opinion!

Mark

Like

Finrod – I asked Barry Brook for an ETA and I am sure he will supply me with that information without your useless intervention.

“The relevent (sic) passage reads” – Indeed it does Finrod and what better way to flog your book than to have excerpts published in the tabloids? Wade Allison is not a radiation biologist or an epidemiologist and has not published any relevant peer reviewed literature.

In addition, his grab sample on Taiwan reveals how shabby (or deliberately false) the contents of his paper are since the Taiwan paper to which he refers, has been disputed several times in peer reviewed literature.

The study compared the relatively young irradiated population with the much older general population of Taiwan, which is a major flaw.

A subsequent study by Hwang et al. (2006) found a significant exposure-dependent increase in cancer in the irradiated population, particularly leukemia in men and thyroid cancer in women, though this trend is only detected amongst those who were first exposed before the age of 30.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/09553000601085980

I’m sure you would appear more credible Finrod if you ceased using tabloid headlines to support a vacuous argument.

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:TUjQXkh0xvgJ:www.nap.edu/catalog/1026.html+%22Health+Risks+of+Radon+and+Other+Internally+Deposited+Alpha-Emitters.%22)&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

“The survey was corrupted by a sudden influx of ‘No’ votes. The sudden influx of votes was clearly organised by an anti-nuclear group”

No it was not “corrupted” by voters Peter Lang as you so wrongly purport. The results were deliberately manipulated by an ANSTO employee:

“Crikey asked ANSTO’s media manager Sharon Kelly what had happened. According to Kelly, ANSTO’s web manager Peter Hindmarsh amended the poll without authorisation over the weekend because of the “Against It” vote spike.

“It has now been altered again, with “It is one of the options” replaced with “No”, rather closer in meaning to the original option, with an explanation of why it was changed.”

And accolades to Mark Diesendorf for alerting the public to ANSTO’s poll though it would take more than public outrage to keep these propagandists honest.

Bludging off the environment is not acceptable in the 21st century. The buzzards are circling but the myopic ideologues on this forum remain anally retentive.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16866

Like

Well Helen, even if the Taiwan study you linked to is valid, (and I’m not forking over $50 to find out) and did control for confounding variables like , occupation, diet and social class, which is something often missing in these studies, what concussion can be drawn? The one I see is that it is poor practice to use steel contaminated with Co-60 in the construction of residential buildings.

This is hardly earth shattering, nor is it particularly novel as almost every jurisdiction on earth forbids using this and other high emitting isotopes for this purpose. This suggests that someone thought it was a bad idea before this study was done.

At any rate it hardly serves as a counter argument for nuclear power stations, as unlike apartment complexes, by law they must monitor and control any radioactive emissions they produce.

Like

Finrod – I asked Barry Brook for an ETA and I am sure he will supply me with that information without your useless intervention.

That’s OK Helen, I’m always happy to help. By the way, requesting an ETA for the process is pretty silly. It’s like asking fo a firm date for the first crewed landing on the planet Mercury. It might be possible to estimate how long it will take if we start such a program now, but it’s impossible to judge when a political decision to do such a thing might be made. Since no-one has any firm plans to do duch a thing, the ETA for such a mission is currently ‘never’. Similarly, there is not, to my knowledge, any firm plan to use nuclear power to synthesise liquid fuels for vehicles. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done if a political decision was made to go down that path. The more relevent question to ask would be “How mature is the state of the art?”.

The study compared the relatively young irradiated population with the much older general population of Taiwan, which is a major flaw.

A subsequent study by Hwang et al. (2006) found a significant exposure-dependent increase in cancer in the irradiated population, particularly leukemia in men and thyroid cancer in women, though this trend is only detected amongst those who were first exposed before the age of 30.

It has long been known that older people are less susceptible to radiation-induced cancer than younger people. This is why ANSTO employs older workers to handle radwaste. Given this, the irradiated population in Taiwan should have shown significant increases in cancer stats from early on, yet the rate still dropped to far below average. At any rate, if the study you’ve referenced really shows the increases you mention, why is it behind a paywall? Shouldn’t you and your anti-nuke cronies be off plastering the results all over the web?

Like

“I’m sure you would appear more credible Finrod if you ceased using tabloid headlines to support a vacuous argument.”

Helen linked to the following study:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16866

This study quotes the following authority:

Environmental Epidemiologist and Founder and Immediate Past President of The International Institute of Concern for Public Health, Dr. Rosalie Bertell,

Here are some links to information concerning ‘Dr.’ Bertell:

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

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

Like

However, could you be more specific and give me an ETA for the production of synthetic fuel use in nuclear electricity?

It all depends on how successful environmental vandals like yourself are in spoiling the deployment of clean power.

It has in any case pretty much been done, eg. by Mobil in New Zealand, just using a non-nuclear source for power and syngas.

Like

The Centre for Research on Globalization, who’s site this article is on, is also a huge con-job. Run on donations, he (for the whole thing is little more than the conceit of one man) manages to afford an office in the heart of Vieux-Montréal, the historic city centre of Montreal, an area where a 650 sqft condo will run you a million bucks plus, and this office is in the dead centre.

I wonder if the contributors know that they are footing the bill so he can prestigious address and be in easy walking distance of the cafés and other entertainment the area is famous for.

Like

Finrod – It reveals a spiteful man when one resorts to “Dr Buzzo’s” (Steve Packard) ad hominem of Rosalie Bertell who has devoted her entire life towards the improvement of public health and the international community which has been victimized by environmental contamination.

Bertell PhD worked as a Professor at the State University of New York Buffalo and as Senior Cancer Research Scientist at Rosewall Park Institute Buffalo. She was a consultant for the Citizens’ Advice Committee of the President’s Commission on the accident at Three Mile Island.

She has published over eighty academic papers and has been called as an expert witness before the US Congress and in licensing hearings for nuclear power plants before the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In the international arena, Bertell has testified before the Select Committee on Uranium Resources in Australia and the Sizewell Enquiry in Britain.

She led the Bhopal and Chernobyl Medical Commissions and has undertaken collaborative research with numerous organisations.

Bertell is the recipient of the Right Livelihood Award, the World Federalist Peace Prize, the United Nations Environment Progamme (UNEP) Global 500 Award, five honorary doctorates etc etc.

What a cowardly little man you are Finrod to kick an internationally renowned old woman in the guts. Weren’t you breastfed as an infant?

Like

Helen, of all the trolls on all the sites I’ve been on, you are by far the most entertaining by far.

Whatever contributions, and frankly I can’t see any of real note Bertell can lay claim to, her obsession with “chemtrails” shows that she has become a fully-fledged crank, of the first water.

A crank is the proper term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of her contemporaries consider to be false. A crank’s belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted truth as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task. Bertell meets all of these criteria, and so by the way do you.

I know she’s a good friend of yours, but really, chemtrails? She is just embarrassing herself.

Like

Finrod – It reveals a spiteful man when one resorts to “Dr Buzzo’s” (Steve Packard) ad hominem of Rosalie Bertell who has devoted her entire life towards the improvement of public health and the international community which has been victimized by environmental contamination.

So what’s with those chemtrails? Are you on board with them?

Like

Wow, I just had a browse through some chemtrail pages. She’s mad as a cut snake. (Interpret the pronoun as you wish.)

Like

In recent years Bertell has dedicated some effort to whipping up alarm about medical imaging technology, mammographies in paticular. It would be nice to think that no women took her seriously enough to avoid a mammograaphy which could have saved their lives, but if that’s the case, it wasn’t because Betell didn’t do her best to mislead people.

Like

“So what’s with those chemtrails? Are you on board with them?”

I have as much knowledge on chemtrails as you would have on ionising radiation Finrod..

However, I do know a little of the US HAARP project’s endeavours to manipulate the environment by heating the ionosphere so anything’s possible.

Then you have the insane rocket geniuses who blew a massive hole in the ionosphere – oops!

Chemtrails? A mere peccadillo when you consider the magnitude of blunders and the accumulative dire impacts these lunatics are wroughting on the biosphere.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/187/4174/343http://www.ann-geophys.net/22/2643/2004/angeo-22-2643-2004.html

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/HAARP_Angels_Dont_Play_This_HAARP.html

Click to access 2007GL032424.pdf

Like

Chemtrails? A mere peccadillo when you consider the magnitude of blunders and the accumulative dire impacts these lunatics are wroughting on the biosphere.

I take that to mean you acknowledge chemtrails as a genuine issue. Your paranoia ove HAARP is also telling. Frankly, I don’t think I could have done a better job of discrediting you than the one you’ve managed to do yourself. Congratulations.

Like

Wow … just when I thought the climate change denying delusionals had the terrain all to themselves, a new contender hoves into view …

Like

Finrod, I think you meant to quote like this:

Chemtrails? A mere peccadillo when you consider the magnitude of blunders (sic) and the accumulative (sic) dire impacts these lunatics are wroughting (sic) on the biosphere.

Like

I daresay it’s fascinating to witness the savages giggling insanely, having becoming aroused at the sight of another prey being ripped to shreds and now we watch as the incoherent alpha males jostle for the highest ranking.

Biological magnification is based on the principle that predators always consume many times their own body weight of their prey so I await the whooping noises from the savages as they feast from the carcass of John Gofman.

Gofman (deceased) was a full professor in the Department of Medical Physics at Berkeley. Besides being an M.D., he also had a Ph.D. in nuclear physics from Berkeley. He was a co-discoverer of U-232, Pa-232, U-233, Pa-233, and of slow and fast neutron fissionability of U-233.

He was also co-inventor of the uranyl acetate and columbium oxide separation processes for plutonium. He taught in the radioisotope and radiobiology field for over 20 years, and performed research in radiochemistry, macromolecules, lipoproteins, coronary heart disease, arteriosclerosis, trace element determination, and x-ray spectroscopy and radiation hazards.

Growing hot under the collar about growing criticism and realising that it had made many serious blunders, the Atomic Energy Commission asked Dr. Gofman to become an Associate Director of the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory and conduct a thorough long-term investigation into the biological effects of radiation.

This investigation took more than six years and raised questions about a lack of data on low-level radiation and it also proposed a wide-ranging study of exposure in medicine and the workplace at a symposium for nuclear scientists and engineers.

Gofman continued to fight the industry view that there is a threshold below which radiation is safe, and founded in 1971 the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, a nonprofit educational and research organization, which he chaired until his death.

However why should nuked up homo-erectus waste time having to learn all this when ignorance is instantaneous and they can be as ignorant today as they were five decades ago?

Like

Helen, are you suggesting that no further work has been done in this area? Because a casual search of the journals shows that there have been well over a thousand since then.

During the 1960’s and 1970’s, about 40 articles per year described hormesis. In 1963, the AEC repeatedly confirmed lower mortality in guinea pigs, rats and mice irradiated at low dose. In 1964, the cows exposed to about 150 rads after the Trinity A-Bomb test in 1946 were quietly euthanized because of extreme old age. This trend continues. It was found that there was decreased cancer mortality in government nuclear facility workers in Canada, the UK, and the US. Whether exposed in uranium mines or processing plants, laboratories, or nuclear power plants—and whether the exposure was to uranium, plutonium, thorium or radium, so long as the dose was 50 times background (chronic) or, 50 rad acute, workers were healthier than those in the general population, mainly due to lower cancer incidence. Decreased cancer mortality, decreased leukemia rate, decreased infant mortality rate and increased lifespan in atomic bomb survivors from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki who received 1.2 rad. was found and a 20% lower cancer death rate in Idaho, Colorado and New Mexico, which have background radiation of 0.72 rad/yr compared with Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama with 0.22 rad/yr was also reported. There were many other similar examples as a quick look through the literature will reveal.

Like

I daresay it’s fascinating to witness the savages giggling insanely, having becoming aroused at the sight of another prey being ripped to shreds and now we watch as the incoherent alpha males jostle for the highest ranking.

Biological magnification is based on the principle that predators always consume many times their own body weight of their prey so I await the whooping noises from the savages as they feast from the carcass of John Gofman.

This seems to be Helen’s manner of conceding defeat.

Like

What literature DV82XL and why have you not provided a link? I have a good idea of the source of this rubbish.

The New Mexico Health Department in 2007 advised that “cancer remains the second leading cause of death (accidental death is number one) among New Mexico children ages one through 14 years.

“A newborn baby’s risk of being diagnosed with cancer before age 20 is about one in 285.

“The number of newly diagnosed cases has exceeded 100 every year since 2001. In all types of cancer in children to age 20, leukaemia trumps every other type.

“The Colorado Kids’ Cancer Association reported that cancer is the leading cause of disease-related deaths in children under 20. Diagnoses of leukaemia, which is the most common childhood cancer, increased by more than15% over the past 20 years.

“The British Journal of Cancer reported (2007) that in Europe, childhood lymphoid leukaemia incidence increased significantly betweeen1970–1999.

“In England and Wales, incidence rose by 20% between the early 1970s and the end of the century. Both incidence and mortality were at least 15% higher in boys than girls throughout the twentieth century.

“Incidence has increased significantly in Europe and in the United States since the 1970s. Even if fatal infections may have had some impact on ‘masking’ leukaemia during the first half of the 20th century, their involvement cannot explain the increase in incidence of childhood leukaemia during 1971–2000.”

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not a reputable source from which to glean accurate information DV82XL. They remain an abysmal failure in the areas of public health and the environment and the nuclear experts quoted in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists support that assertion:

‘Consistent criticism from all sides proves that the NRC isn’t a good regulator

‘The NRC must see itself as a regulator first, not an industry booster

‘Pro-industry priorities derail NRC’s public-safety mission.”

Only fools from faraway places would believe that the Australian public will accept the ignominious and third world regulatory nuclear standards of the US, UK, France and Canada. If you believe that the world cannot live without fission then clean it up, sharpen up and cease being a smart-arse!

Like

The New Mexico Health Department in 2007 advised that “cancer remains the second leading cause of death (accidental death is number one) among New Mexico children ages one through 14 years.

To which factors did they actually attribute this rise?

the nuclear experts quoted in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists support that assertion:

The Bulletin of Atomic acientists is a political organisarion, not a scientific one. There are damn few if any “atomic scientists” involved with it these days.

Like

“The Bulletin of Atomic acientists is a political organisarion, not a scientific one. There are damn few if any “atomic scientists” involved with it these days.”

Finrod – Not only is your knowledge on the nuclear industry poor, so is your English comprehension since I made clear that I was not quoting from the opinions of any member of the Governing Board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

Quotes in the BAS were attributed to:

Anthony R. Pietrangelo

An industrial engineer, Pietrangelo is the Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI) vice president of regulatory affairs. At NEI, he handles oversight of nuclear plant security, emergency planning, and regulation initiatives.

He also oversees the industry’s interaction with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and senior management and presentations to the commission on regulatory reform and other topics etc etc.

David Lochbaum

A nuclear safety engineer, Lochbaum joined the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in 1996, where he monitors safety issues at U.S. nuclear power plants, raises concerns with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and responds to breaking events such as current concerns regarding aging power plant and plant fire safety.

His expertise is in nuclear power plant design, nuclear regulatory oversight, and nuclear waste issues.

He has written numerous reports, including “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Report on Safety in America’s Nuclear Power Industry,” “Three Mile Island’s Puzzling Legacy,” and the book, Nuclear Waste Disposal Crisis etc etc.

Victor Gilinsky

A physicist, Gilinsky is an independent consultant, most recently advising Nevada on matters related to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

His expertise spans a broad range of energy issues. From 1975 to 1984, he served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, having been nominated by President Gerald Ford and renominated by President Jimmy Carter etc etc.

Sharpen up and stop being a smart-arse – you’re a handicap to the cause!

Like

Finrod – Not only is your knowledge on the nuclear industry poor, so is your English comprehension since I made clear that I was not quoting from the opinions of any member of the Governing Board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

How could anyone know whether or not you were quoting credible nuclear experts after putting Rosalie Bertell up as one? For all anyone knew, you may well have been quoting the Governing Board.

What literature DV82XL and why have you not provided a link? I have a good idea of the source of this rubbish.

Presumably the next paragraph relates to the previous one.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not a reputable source from which to glean accurate information DV82XL. They remain an abysmal failure in the areas of public health and the environment…

Do you think the NRC has been behind a push to get radiation hormesis accepted for regulatory purposes? If only it were true!

Like

Ms.Perps

What a wonderful single contribution you have made to this thread on the issue of nuclear energy. Thank you so much for your expert opinion.

And I must also express my gratitude to the other nuclear punters who have failed to provide one scientific paper on nuclear energy to support their chatter – not one!

Naturally, these elite punters would have you believe they’re so credible, (despite the pseudonyms) that we plebs must take them at their word.

Well I don’t believe the baring of teeth from the pack is good enough for Joe Citizen and I’m certainly delighted the pack is not on my side of the fence.

Therefore while the pack continue chewing off their own limbs and stoking the funeral pyre, I advise I have, without regret, much more rewarding matters to address which should allow the vaudeville to continue with impunity.

Hasta La Vista!

Like

Helen, you can find a good deal of material here in Dose-Response the quarterly peer-reviewed journal of the International Dose-Response Society. Dose-Response is devoted to the publication of original findings on the occurrence of nonlinear dose-response relationships across a broad range of biological disciplines.

The International Dose-Response Society is located within the School of Public Health and Health Sciences at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Oh and its a bit rich, you criticizing any other posters contributions here, given the shrill quality of your rhetoric.

You know you have lost the greater fight, and history (if it remembers at all) will not be kind to you. Galling isn’t it?

Like

Therefore while the pack continue chewing off their own limbs and stoking the funeral pyre

You are a very strange person.

Like

Lawrence, just doing some quick and rough calculations, I make US$4.60/gallon, which Engineer-poet views with such dismay, to be about AUD$1.30/litre. Expensive perhaps, but nothing we’re not already occasionally subject to.

Like

I’ve gotta absorb E-P’s analysis better, but I thought somewhere in there he showed you would need to build 10x the nuclear plants to supply this artificial gas as you would electrical power to get the same number of VMT. Not real efficient.

Like

But the advantage is you don’ need to re-engineer a country’s entire vehicle fleet, build a new power grid to handle the enormous new daily loads, write off the existing liquid fuels distribution infrastructure and vehicle manufacturing plant, and convince people to buy a more expensive vehicle with a shorter range than their current ride.

I’m in no way against the development of electric vehicles, I think its highly desirable. But I’m very much for decarbonization strategies that live inside our current infrastrure and behavioural envelope.

Like

I’ve gotta absorb E-P’s analysis better, but I thought somewhere in there he showed you would need to build 10x the nuclear plants to supply this artificial gas as you would electrical power to get the same number of VMT. Not real efficient.

Electric cars are good, but while I’m sure we’ll soon find a way around the last remaining issues to a full rollout of them, I have less hope for the swift introduction of the electric semi-trailor, bulldozer, combine harvester, cement truck and airliner.

Like

Airliners yes. Everything else I’m not so sure.
Tom Blees’ boron engines would work for those, I guess. They’d work for ships too, I should think.

Like

John Morgan is very fond of petroleum-industry talking points:

the advantage is you don’ need to re-engineer a country’s entire vehicle fleet

Advantage? The vehicle fleet is going to be replaced in less than 20 years anyway. Half of vehicle lifetime mileage is driven in about 6 years from new.

build a new power grid to handle the enormous new daily loads

Another canard. At least half the US vehicle fleet’s mileage could go electric without needing a single new powerplant, so long as they charged off-peak. In the mean time, we’re adding lots of wind and gas turbines.

write off the existing liquid fuels distribution infrastructure

Most of it is fully amortized already. Being able to replace e.g. pipelines with smaller, cheaper ones when doing maintenance is a plus.

… and vehicle manufacturing plant

Now this assertion is just strange. There’s nothing special about the plant which manufactures the Volt.

and convince people to buy a more expensive vehicle with a shorter range than their current ride.

Assumes a falsehood. The falsehood is necessary for the conclusion, so the conclusion is also false. The Volt’s range is approximately 640 miles.

The strange part is that some people will whine about abandoning bits of old fuel infrastructure, but not even blink at the idea of spending 10 times as much on new nuclear plants (Green Freedom) to be able to continue using it.  Meanwhile, we have an electric grid which can already carry the bulk of the energy we’d need it to, and the upgrades to handle 100+% are relatively cheap.  This selective blindness (probably driven by political and tribal affiliation) is disappointing, but all too common.

Like

Incidentally, the difference between an LWR and a CANDU on the fuel supply side causes the opposite problem on the spent-fuel side.  A CANDU only gets about 7000 MW-D/ton of fuel (from memory), so the volume of spent fuel is multiples greater than an LWR with burnup of 40,000-50,000 MW-D/ton.  The LWR is burning more of the plutonium it produces, so the total amount of Pu in spent CANDU fuel is going to be greater (less than 0.4% compared to ~0.8%, but over a much larger tonnage).

Like

Engineer-Poet, on 10 May 2010 at 10.44 Said:

“…so the total amount of Pu in spent CANDU fuel is going to be greater (less than 0.4% compared to ~0.8%, but over a much larger tonnage).”

I love this attempt to smear CANDU with this claim, because as far as waste goes the LWR needs enriched uranium and the mass of the tailings from that process has to be added to the account.

And also keep in mind that ‘spent’ fuel from a LWR can be re-burnt in a CANDU with out reprocessing. This is the DUPIC cycle.

Like

What is the problem with so called ‘spent fuel’?

The quantities are minuscule whichever process is used.

Here is a photograph of the storage of the used fuel from the full life of a now decommissioned US NPP
http://www.nukeworker.com/pictures/displayimage-5205-fullsize.html This plant ran for 31 years and produced 44TWh of electricity. And these canisters contain all the used fuel. For comparison consider the amount of waste from a coal fired power station that produced 44TWh of electricity.

Spent fuel isn’t spent. It is ‘once used’ fuel. Only a small fraction of the energy has been used so far. When it becomes cheaper to reprocess rather then mine new uranium, we’ll re use the ‘once used nuclear fuel’

I don’t see ‘once used nuclear fuel’ as a technical problem. To me it is a political and public perception problem.

Like

Engineer-Poet said:

Assumes a falsehood. The falsehood is necessary for the conclusion, so the conclusion is also false. The Volt’s range is approximately 640 miles.

This is false. The battery range of the Chevy Volt is 64 km. You are out by more than an order of magnitude. Your conclusion is therefore, by your logic, false.

Like

Leave a Reply (Markdown is enabled)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s