27 April 2012

Nuclear Issues in Australia and Beyond; One Perspective

27 April 2012 | canberra_skeptics

A Canberra Skeptics Lecture
Date: Monday, 14 May 2012
Time: 6.00-7.30pm
Venue: Lecture Theatre, CSIRO Discovery Centre, Clunies Ross Street, Acton, ACT 2601
Speaker: Professor Dr George Dracoulis, FAA

Members Free/Non-Members Gold Coin Donation

Nuclear issues in Australia have had a conflicted history. We are a country with significant uranium resources but no nuclear power. This talk will cover selected aspects of uranium production, nuclear fission, the scale of present and future nuclear power world-wide, life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from competing technologies, and the demand and comparative cost of electricity generation in Australia. In the year following the dramatic events at Fukushima and at the 25^th anniversary of Chernobyl, there are numerous topics that underlie the debate. These include politics, risk, public perception and public acceptance.

George Dracoulis has been a member of Department of Nuclear Physics at the Australian National University since 1973, and was Head from 1992 to July 2009. He was appointed Professor Emeritus in 2010. During 2006 he was a member of the Prime Minister’s task force that reviewed the prospects for uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy in Australia and he has been involved in public engagement on nuclear policy issues, here and abroad.

Dinner will follow the lecture (venue tbc). To RSVP for dinner please email: mail@canberraskeptics.org.au

For further information about Canberra Skeptics please visit our website: http://www.canberraskeptics.org.au

Join the conversation

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

howeph9:15 pm 16 Jan 14

Diggety said :

howepth, for someone who is apparently scared of climate change, you do a good job of limiting human’s ability to deal with it.

My position? Use all technological prowess to solve the problem.

You position? Limit us to a small set of tools.

All while our international competitors are researching, using, understanding all energy technologies, Australia is limited by Luddites.

My position is that real, effective action on climate change, of the scale required to limit warming to the dangerous level of 2 degrees, is critically overdue.

Nuclear energy is a distraction from achieving this aim at a time when we can’t afford more distractions.

Sincere proponents of nuclear energy, such as your self, need to critically assess their position. Based upon the economics alone, nuclear energy in Australia is a pipe dream (read the article linked above and/or wait for the AETA 2013 Update to understand why this is the case). But also understand that you and your position is being used, by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, to delay the regulation reforms and investment in support of renewables that is required to meet this crisis in time. It may already be too late.

maxblues7:09 pm 16 Jan 14

Diggety said :

maxblues said :

Diggety said :

I still can’t believe that Australia is a 21st century country, banning the newest, safest, low carbon energy source.

Roll on, competitors…

Diggetty, are you a director of Dig-Dagg or are you in a partnership with Fred Dagg? On page 110 of his second work, DAGGSHEAD REVISITED, talks about his “dear close personal friend Dr Teller, the father of the very loud bang” and like you thinks the nuclear side should be given a fair hearing. He says
“I can see how this hideous and frightening alternative to the swift mathematical neatness of a nuclear mishap should be revealed to the public. I can appreciate the wisdom of presenting the others side of the story to the potential victims of this lingering fate”.

Say ah, yeah, gidday to Fred. The last time I saw him was in Perth, during the second umlaut of the Australia v Poland match in the challenge round build-up for the World Farnarkeling Championship. Fred was particularly impressed with the Inverse Blither performed by the remarkable Dave Sorenson.

Totes correct, maxblues.

I also have the head of a lizard and breath fire.

My lab has a “toxic substances only” policy, and I’m on a scholarship from Satan.

I was spawned from Thatchers bottom to starve Welsh coal miners, and Tony Abbott is my sister.

And that’s only my good side, max 😉

We have a connection after all, Satan is my ex-father-in-law.
Sorry to hear about your fire breath and thatcher’s bottom (sounds like an occupational malady of British roofers).

Nylex_Clock6:59 pm 16 Jan 14

Diggety said :

My position? Use all technological prowess to solve the problem.

You position? Limit us to a small set of tools.
.

No, your position is that you lack the ability to correctly analyse the defects inherent in a moribund 1950’s technology spun-off from the military for no good reason other than to cause the taxpayer to further fund the military-industrial complex through devious means.

Others’ position is that new and proven technologies that are demonstrably cheaper warrant investment.

maxblues6:41 pm 16 Jan 14

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

maxblues said :

shauno said :

I havnt read the rest of the thred so might have already been brought up. You cant compare Fukushima reactor to any that may be built in Australia. Fukushima was built on a subduction zone a huge earthquake, volcano and tsunami risk. In fact the sea wall protecting Fukushima was built way smaller then what was recommended during the design phase for protection against tsunami.

As for Australia its essentially geologically dead and the main land is no where near a plate boundary its also geopolitically safe and is the safest place by far to have nuclear reactors compared to anywhere else on Earth. Comparing it to Fukushima is just silly.

As a bloke in the industry once told me, all an earthquake (or terrorist) needs to do to cause an accident at a nuclear reactor is fracture the coolant inlet pipes.
Do yourself a favour go to wikipedia and checkout the lengthy list of Australian earthquakes that have done damage to buildings. There has pretty much been at least one per decade spread across every state in Australia. Whilst we have had some in the 7 range like Fukushima, they don’t have to be that strong to cause considerable damage to infrastructure. The 1989 quake in Newcastle that caused about 175 casualties, 13 of them fatal and extensive damage to buildings/services was only in the 5 range. Australia has had many in the 5, 6 and even 7 range of the Richter scale in relatively short time we have been recording them. I’m old enough to remember a couple and help with the clean up.

Was it the janitor you were speaking to?

Fair call Commie. I know you will call BS on this (and I don’t blame you at all) but I left it vague as “a bloke in the industry” because he would not want me to identify him. About all I can say is that he has both a science and a security background and has visited reactors around the world including our own Lucas Heights. I am a great fan of his work and I think I still would be if he wasn’t a relative. He is not in Canberra but many insiders here know him and/or his work. Of course he has told me absolutely nothing of a Classified nature.

Nylex_Clock6:40 pm 16 Jan 14

shauno said :

I havnt read the rest of the thred so might have already been brought up. You cant compare Fukushima reactor to any that may be built in Australia. Fukushima was built on a subduction zone a huge earthquake, volcano and tsunami risk. In fact the sea wall protecting Fukushima was built way smaller then what was recommended during the design phase for protection against tsunami.

As for Australia its essentially geologically dead and the main land is no where near a plate boundary its also geopolitically safe and is the safest place by far to have nuclear reactors compared to anywhere else on Earth. Comparing it to Fukushima is just silly.

Obviously a stranger to risk management.

The issue with Fukushima isn’t the annualised rate of occurrence. It’s happened once. Just the once, and the actual consequences are way beyond anything we could ever afford. Therefore the risk cannot be accepted. Not by the taxpayer, anyway – let’s see the Nuke industry get proper insurance at commercial rates without externalising any risk onto the taxpayer. Perhaps they can properly price their product in order to build up the funds necessary to deal with future Fukushima-like situations? How much would Nuke-generated electricity cost if they were paying for the Fukushima situation instead of evading responsibility?

Meanwhile, even with the Nuke industry cheating like this, Wind is way, way cheaper and Solar isn’t far behind.

You would have to have rocks in your head to be calling for the taxpayer to invest any money at all into developing a local nuke industry.
Not just an utter waste of money on a decrepit and dirty 20th century technology for boiling water in the most dangerous manner imaginable, but in fact a clear recipe for disaster.

Diggety5:58 pm 16 Jan 14

howeph said :

Diggety said :

howeph, relax. A “CONSPIRACY” is far fetched, but you’re welcome to think so.

Thanks. I am relaxed.

I’m not claiming a conspiracy. I can think of some valid reasons why such a publication might be withdrawn but it is very poor form to not post a notice explaining the reason for doing so. We are patiently waiting for that reason and the re-released report.

However it would also be naive to pretend that staggeringly large sums of money and considerable political capital don’t hang in the balance over this issue.

It is the economics, or more precisely the perceived economics, that will ultimately determine the outcome and therefore controlling that perception is crucial to the various interest groups. Consequently not only must the government’s relevant economic advisor, The Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE), provide frank and fearless advice, it must also be publicly perceived to be doing so. Incidents such as this do not help.

Diggety said :

I think you need someone with stat&energy system expertise to walk through the report. Please don’t take the report as a blueprint by the way, things can change – they make you happy or sad.

I am however getting tired of lazy, condescending comments though:

* “I think you need someone with stat&energy system expertise to walk through the report.”

* “Please read the CSIRO report to understand the topic, howeph.

* “Understanding the system overall is is key to assessing the inclusion or exclusion of technologies”

I have read the publications. I think that the difference is that I have critically assessed them. May I suggest that you do the same. The key is to look at the assumptions upon which these reports are built.

Diggety said :

Either way, you’re a bias example of an intelligent person with a anti-nuclear disposition, a case worth studying.

I didn’t know that the definition of bias was to have a different opinion than Diggety.

Is Professor John Quiggin biased too? He thinks that reviving the nuclear power debate is a distraction and the main problem with the nuclear option is that it is not economically viable. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/reviving-nuclear-power-debates-is-a-distraction-we-need-to-use-less-energy

howepth, for someone who is apparently scared of climate change, you do a good job of limiting human’s ability to deal with it.

My position? Use all technological prowess to solve the problem.

You position? Limit us to a small set of tools.

All while our international competitors are researching, using, understanding all energy technologies, Australia is limited by Luddites.

Diggety5:53 pm 16 Jan 14

maxblues said :

Diggety said :

I still can’t believe that Australia is a 21st century country, banning the newest, safest, low carbon energy source.

Roll on, competitors…

Diggetty, are you a director of Dig-Dagg or are you in a partnership with Fred Dagg? On page 110 of his second work, DAGGSHEAD REVISITED, talks about his “dear close personal friend Dr Teller, the father of the very loud bang” and like you thinks the nuclear side should be given a fair hearing. He says
“I can see how this hideous and frightening alternative to the swift mathematical neatness of a nuclear mishap should be revealed to the public. I can appreciate the wisdom of presenting the others side of the story to the potential victims of this lingering fate”.

Say ah, yeah, gidday to Fred. The last time I saw him was in Perth, during the second umlaut of the Australia v Poland match in the challenge round build-up for the World Farnarkeling Championship. Fred was particularly impressed with the Inverse Blither performed by the remarkable Dave Sorenson.

Totes correct, maxblues.

I also have the head of a lizard and breath fire.

My lab has a “toxic substances only” policy, and I’m on a scholarship from Satan.

I was spawned from Thatchers bottom to starve Welsh coal miners, and Tony Abbott is my sister.

And that’s only my good side, max 😉

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd5:43 pm 16 Jan 14

maxblues said :

shauno said :

I havnt read the rest of the thred so might have already been brought up. You cant compare Fukushima reactor to any that may be built in Australia. Fukushima was built on a subduction zone a huge earthquake, volcano and tsunami risk. In fact the sea wall protecting Fukushima was built way smaller then what was recommended during the design phase for protection against tsunami.

As for Australia its essentially geologically dead and the main land is no where near a plate boundary its also geopolitically safe and is the safest place by far to have nuclear reactors compared to anywhere else on Earth. Comparing it to Fukushima is just silly.

As a bloke in the industry once told me, all an earthquake (or terrorist) needs to do to cause an accident at a nuclear reactor is fracture the coolant inlet pipes.
Do yourself a favour go to wikipedia and checkout the lengthy list of Australian earthquakes that have done damage to buildings. There has pretty much been at least one per decade spread across every state in Australia. Whilst we have had some in the 7 range like Fukushima, they don’t have to be that strong to cause considerable damage to infrastructure. The 1989 quake in Newcastle that caused about 175 casualties, 13 of them fatal and extensive damage to buildings/services was only in the 5 range. Australia has had many in the 5, 6 and even 7 range of the Richter scale in relatively short time we have been recording them. I’m old enough to remember a couple and help with the clean up.

Was it the janitor you were speaking to?

howeph5:04 pm 16 Jan 14

Diggety said :

howeph, relax. A “CONSPIRACY” is far fetched, but you’re welcome to think so.

Thanks. I am relaxed.

I’m not claiming a conspiracy. I can think of some valid reasons why such a publication might be withdrawn but it is very poor form to not post a notice explaining the reason for doing so. We are patiently waiting for that reason and the re-released report.

However it would also be naive to pretend that staggeringly large sums of money and considerable political capital don’t hang in the balance over this issue.

It is the economics, or more precisely the perceived economics, that will ultimately determine the outcome and therefore controlling that perception is crucial to the various interest groups. Consequently not only must the government’s relevant economic advisor, The Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE), provide frank and fearless advice, it must also be publicly perceived to be doing so. Incidents such as this do not help.

Diggety said :

I think you need someone with stat&energy system expertise to walk through the report. Please don’t take the report as a blueprint by the way, things can change – they make you happy or sad.

I am however getting tired of lazy, condescending comments though:

* “I think you need someone with stat&energy system expertise to walk through the report.”

* “Please read the CSIRO report to understand the topic, howeph.

* “Understanding the system overall is is key to assessing the inclusion or exclusion of technologies”

I have read the publications. I think that the difference is that I have critically assessed them. May I suggest that you do the same. The key is to look at the assumptions upon which these reports are built.

Diggety said :

Either way, you’re a bias example of an intelligent person with a anti-nuclear disposition, a case worth studying.

I didn’t know that the definition of bias was to have a different opinion than Diggety.

Is Professor John Quiggin biased too? He thinks that reviving the nuclear power debate is a distraction and the main problem with the nuclear option is that it is not economically viable. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/reviving-nuclear-power-debates-is-a-distraction-we-need-to-use-less-energy

maxblues4:07 pm 16 Jan 14

shauno said :

I havnt read the rest of the thred so might have already been brought up. You cant compare Fukushima reactor to any that may be built in Australia. Fukushima was built on a subduction zone a huge earthquake, volcano and tsunami risk. In fact the sea wall protecting Fukushima was built way smaller then what was recommended during the design phase for protection against tsunami.

As for Australia its essentially geologically dead and the main land is no where near a plate boundary its also geopolitically safe and is the safest place by far to have nuclear reactors compared to anywhere else on Earth. Comparing it to Fukushima is just silly.

As a bloke in the industry once told me, all an earthquake (or terrorist) needs to do to cause an accident at a nuclear reactor is fracture the coolant inlet pipes.
Do yourself a favour go to wikipedia and checkout the lengthy list of Australian earthquakes that have done damage to buildings. There has pretty much been at least one per decade spread across every state in Australia. Whilst we have had some in the 7 range like Fukushima, they don’t have to be that strong to cause considerable damage to infrastructure. The 1989 quake in Newcastle that caused about 175 casualties, 13 of them fatal and extensive damage to buildings/services was only in the 5 range. Australia has had many in the 5, 6 and even 7 range of the Richter scale in relatively short time we have been recording them. I’m old enough to remember a couple and help with the clean up.

maxblues2:32 pm 08 Jan 14

chewy14 said :

maxblues said :

chewy14 said :

Maxblues,
With regards to #6 it was clearly a ridiculous and silly statement.

But I actually think the quotes and a lot of the engineers you’ve mentioned aren’t necessarily anti-nuclear.
A lot of them are doing what I would expect good engineers to do and pointing out failures of design, regulation and management. This is a good thing which allows us to make technologies better and safer. Rather than being anti-nuclear, they allow failures to be identified, addressed and rectified.

What part of “a serious threat to all life on this planet” do you think is not anti-nuclear?

Once again you completely ignore the context of those quotes. The three engineers you attribute that quote to, were referencing concerns about design of particular reactors in 1976. As Fukushima showed, they were right to be worried. Not anti-nuclear, just good risk management.

I think my post from yesterday stands, your belief is that no matter what technological advances we make, nuclear power can never be safe. I disagree and I don’t think your quotes actually back up your position of totality.

chewy14 said :

maxblues said :

chewy14 said :

Maxblues,
With regards to #6 it was clearly a ridiculous and silly statement.

But I actually think the quotes and a lot of the engineers you’ve mentioned aren’t necessarily anti-nuclear.
A lot of them are doing what I would expect good engineers to do and pointing out failures of design, regulation and management. This is a good thing which allows us to make technologies better and safer. Rather than being anti-nuclear, they allow failures to be identified, addressed and rectified.

What part of “a serious threat to all life on this planet” do you think is not anti-nuclear?

Once again you completely ignore the context of those quotes. The three engineers you attribute that quote to, were referencing concerns about design of particular reactors in 1976. As Fukushima showed, they were right to be worried. Not anti-nuclear, just good risk management.

I think my post from yesterday stands, your belief is that no matter what technological advances we make, nuclear power can never be safe. I disagree and I don’t think your quotes actually back up your position of totality.

Technological advances can only go so far until a human operator becomes involved. One of the GE Three has said that “human error is a credible event”. He also said that “radiation is clearly not good for life and there is no way, I feel, with the human error, that we can keep it away from human beings”.
Gregory Minor said “We cannot design to cover the human error, and I am convinced the safety of nuclear reactors hangs on the human error”. Hubbard and Minor had both worked on reactor control rooms. When they left General Electric they vowed to live off their savings and work in the movement to defeat nuclear power in California (they have since formed a consultancy company). You are right Chewy, Dale Bridenbaugh is still concerned about the design flaws of the reactors at Fukushima 1 Nuclear Power Plant. In 2011, he stated that the design of five of the six reactors “did not take into account the dynamic loads that could be experienced with a loss of coolant” and that despite efforts to retrofit the reactors, they were “still a little more susceptible to an accident that would result in a loss of containment”.

howeph11:32 am 08 Jan 14

Actually, you pretty much just said ‘source’ rather than listing errors.

You were the one making the controversial claims therefore it is your responsibility to justify them. My calling out “source?” indicates that I dispute your claim and await your justification so that the discussion can continue.

I’m neither pro or anti nuke and I’ll be happy when we do have decent renewables and can remove coal from the equation.

Global warming is the greatest existential threat to our children’s way of life. If you can show me that renewables can NOT deliver the energy required to reform our stationary and transport energy requirements then I would go into bat for nuclear energy with all guns blazing. Fortunately however this is not the case.

However, what would happen if we were to switch off every coal fired plant tomorrow?

The lights would go out. What’s your point?

It doesn’t matter how much you continue to say so, the fact is wind and solar simply cannot run this country at this time.

Source?

Here I’ll help. Here are some of my source showing that 100% renewables is feasible. You just have to show where they are wrong such that renewables are incapable of meeting our energy requirements:

* The Australian Energy Market Operator (AMEO) says renewable can.

* The CSIRO says renewable can: eFuture

* And a collaboration between The University of Melbourne and The Energy Research Institute ‘Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan‘ says renewables can.

And therefore, as I said, nothing can be discarded at this stage. More R&D is needed into all forms of energy production, including wave and hydro. To not do so would be extremely short sighted and counterproductive to the wellbeing of the country.

None of those plans rely on wave technology. And do we really need more research into hydro? R & D is great, and of course should be on going but we need to act NOW. Luckly the renewable technologies that we have now are sufficient.

To continue to dither about while the rest of the world gets on with the job would be extremely short sighted and counterproductive to the wellbeing of the country.

maxblues10:30 am 08 Jan 14

chewy14 said :

maxblues said :

maxblues said :

chewy14 said :

maxblues said :

“A serious threat to the future of all life on this planet”.
“We can never build them safe enough”.
“just too big a risk”
…the rantings of small brain f*ckwits? No actually comments made by three nuclear engineers who resigned from General Electric Company’s nuclear reactor division in 1976. Amongst their concerns were the necessity of containing and safeguarding radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years; the relationship between radioactivity, disease, and genetic defects; the dangers of human error, accidents, sabotage, blackmail, and theft throughout the nuclear fuel cycle and the certainty that the spread of nuclear power reactors would accelerate the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Dale Bridenbaugh, one of the three, had 22 years with General Electric, and the three had a combined total of 54 years service with the company. They had been involved in the development of 65 nuclear plants in the USA and another 30 internationally. Small brained f*ckwits?…I don’t think so.

1976 hey? It’s not like anything could possibly improve since that time right?

I mean look at solar and wind power generators. Exactly the same level of technology as back then.

“They told me my job was to approve reactors, not to raise doubts about them.”
That was nuclear reactor designer Setsuo Fujiwara who refused to change a report about a flawed test at the Tomari nuclear plant in 2009. Not a small-brained f*ckwit.

“They had known about the unsafe procedures for years”.
That was senior nuclear engineer George Galatis who was the subject of a Time magazine cover story in March, 1996, which concerned the unsafe reactor refuelling procedures at Millstone 1 Nuclear Power Plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that Northeast Utilites had operated the reactor outside of its design basis and Millstone 1 was permanently closed in 1998. Galatis was not a small-brained f*ckwit.

Are these random quotes meant to have a point?

None actually are an argument against nuclear energy as a technology. Some are good examples of whistleblowing, others are failures in regulation or old designs. New and better technologies and safety measures are developed constantly.

Unless you’re arguing that human’s are too stupid to learn from their mistakes and could never design and regulate the technology to relative safety. Then I’d point you to entirety of recorded scientific history as evidence of your complete wrongness. We are better than that.

Note, this isn’t necessarily a pro nuclear post, just a response to the complete irrelevance of the above quotes in the argument being had above with some good posts by multiple people

Let me join the dots for you. I am responding primarily to #6 which has no cohesive supporting argument to it but, Chewy you don’t seem to have a problem with that.
The reason that I have included quotes from nuclear engineers such as Dale Bridenbaugh, Gregory Minor, Richard Hubbard, Setsuo Fujiwara and George Galatis is to illustrate two things, that not only do people of considerable intellect (nuclear engineers can’t be small-brained) have fears about nuclear energy but that industry insiders hold these same fears. There are many more, such as David Lochbaum and Ronald Goldstein who exposed non-compliance with safety procedures and quality control violations affecting safety of nuclear plants. Then there is Larry Criscione and Richard Perkins, engineers employed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission who publicly accused the NRC of downplaying the flood risks of nuclear plants.
My opposition to nuclear energy began in 1976, when I bought a copy of a book titled ‘Unacceptable Risk’ by McKinley C. Olson (Bantam Books). All 285 pages put me off nuclear energy (and smoking!) for life. Sure this book was written in a time before the public were able to buy personal computers and may be a little dated, but a half life is a half life.
It is a pity that some on this thread can only resort to insults and brain size.

chewy148:14 pm 07 Jan 14

maxblues said :

maxblues said :

chewy14 said :

maxblues said :

“A serious threat to the future of all life on this planet”.
“We can never build them safe enough”.
“just too big a risk”
…the rantings of small brain f*ckwits? No actually comments made by three nuclear engineers who resigned from General Electric Company’s nuclear reactor division in 1976. Amongst their concerns were the necessity of containing and safeguarding radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years; the relationship between radioactivity, disease, and genetic defects; the dangers of human error, accidents, sabotage, blackmail, and theft throughout the nuclear fuel cycle and the certainty that the spread of nuclear power reactors would accelerate the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Dale Bridenbaugh, one of the three, had 22 years with General Electric, and the three had a combined total of 54 years service with the company. They had been involved in the development of 65 nuclear plants in the USA and another 30 internationally. Small brained f*ckwits?…I don’t think so.

1976 hey? It’s not like anything could possibly improve since that time right?

I mean look at solar and wind power generators. Exactly the same level of technology as back then.

“They told me my job was to approve reactors, not to raise doubts about them.”
That was nuclear reactor designer Setsuo Fujiwara who refused to change a report about a flawed test at the Tomari nuclear plant in 2009. Not a small-brained f*ckwit.

“They had known about the unsafe procedures for years”.
That was senior nuclear engineer George Galatis who was the subject of a Time magazine cover story in March, 1996, which concerned the unsafe reactor refuelling procedures at Millstone 1 Nuclear Power Plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that Northeast Utilites had operated the reactor outside of its design basis and Millstone 1 was permanently closed in 1998. Galatis was not a small-brained f*ckwit.

Are these random quotes meant to have a point?

None actually are an argument against nuclear energy as a technology. Some are good examples of whistleblowing, others are failures in regulation or old designs. New and better technologies and safety measures are developed constantly.

Unless you’re arguing that human’s are too stupid to learn from their mistakes and could never design and regulate the technology to relative safety. Then I’d point you to entirety of recorded scientific history as evidence of your complete wrongness. We are better than that.

Note, this isn’t necessarily a pro nuclear post, just a response to the complete irrelevance of the above quotes in the argument being had above with some good posts by multiple people

maxblues4:41 pm 07 Jan 14

maxblues said :

chewy14 said :

maxblues said :

“A serious threat to the future of all life on this planet”.
“We can never build them safe enough”.
“just too big a risk”
…the rantings of small brain f*ckwits? No actually comments made by three nuclear engineers who resigned from General Electric Company’s nuclear reactor division in 1976. Amongst their concerns were the necessity of containing and safeguarding radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years; the relationship between radioactivity, disease, and genetic defects; the dangers of human error, accidents, sabotage, blackmail, and theft throughout the nuclear fuel cycle and the certainty that the spread of nuclear power reactors would accelerate the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Dale Bridenbaugh, one of the three, had 22 years with General Electric, and the three had a combined total of 54 years service with the company. They had been involved in the development of 65 nuclear plants in the USA and another 30 internationally. Small brained f*ckwits?…I don’t think so.

1976 hey? It’s not like anything could possibly improve since that time right?

I mean look at solar and wind power generators. Exactly the same level of technology as back then.

“They told me my job was to approve reactors, not to raise doubts about them.”
That was nuclear reactor designer Setsuo Fujiwara who refused to change a report about a flawed test at the Tomari nuclear plant in 2009. Not a small-brained f*ckwit.

“They had known about the unsafe procedures for years”.
That was senior nuclear engineer George Galatis who was the subject of a Time magazine cover story in March, 1996, which concerned the unsafe reactor refuelling procedures at Millstone 1 Nuclear Power Plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that Northeast Utilites had operated the reactor outside of its design basis and Millstone 1 was permanently closed in 1998. Galatis was not a small-brained f*ckwit.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd7:25 am 07 Jan 14

IrishPete said :

IrishPete said :

MrBigEars said :

justsomeaussie said :

All things being equal nuclear technology (including meltdowns) could be far safer than pumping 10 tons of coal dust into the atmosphere everyday instead of producing 10 years of nuclear waste a year (which you can move and store). For all the alarm and calamity that a meltdown causes those impacted are largely small when considering what global sea rises could cause.

Comparing the deathprint (shutup, is so a real word) for coal sourced power of 170 000 deaths per trillion kWhr globally vs nuclear 90 per trillion kWhr, according to this Forbes article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Also, xkcd. http://xkcd.com/radiation/

justsomeaussie said :

As always the truth lies in the middle.

Yes. But it’s hard to get fired up about things in the middle, even (especially?) if they are true.

You won’t find me, or any greens member of voter, arguing for coal.

As we’ve already established that the nuclear power industry is an offshoot of the nuclear weapons industry, perhaps Hiroshima and Nagasaki need to be included in the body count.

IP

You could include Hiroshima and Nagasaki but that would be completely illogical and, frankly, ridiculous…

At present solar/ wind/ wave/ whatever cannot provide the power needed. Take away coal and we’re stuffed. As such nothing can be ruled out at this point of time given that populations are simply going to continue to explode. Indeed, all sources must be explored.

Hopefully in the future we can find a true (and perfectly green and safe) alternative source of power. Probably not in my life time but in times well beyond that.

Wrong so many times it is hard to count.

If we are too stupid to stop population growth then we deserve nuclear power and the war, potentially nuclear, that will likely follow overpopulation and competition for resources. And quite possibly in your lifetime. Likely? No. Possible? Yes. Preventable? definitely. Is nuclear power the answer? Not unless it was a really stupid question.

IP

I like the reasons you think that and the source material posted to back it up…oh wait, youonlyspouted a load of nonsense with zero sources! My bad!

IrishPete12:47 am 07 Jan 14

IrishPete said :

MrBigEars said :

justsomeaussie said :

All things being equal nuclear technology (including meltdowns) could be far safer than pumping 10 tons of coal dust into the atmosphere everyday instead of producing 10 years of nuclear waste a year (which you can move and store). For all the alarm and calamity that a meltdown causes those impacted are largely small when considering what global sea rises could cause.

Comparing the deathprint (shutup, is so a real word) for coal sourced power of 170 000 deaths per trillion kWhr globally vs nuclear 90 per trillion kWhr, according to this Forbes article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Also, xkcd. http://xkcd.com/radiation/

justsomeaussie said :

As always the truth lies in the middle.

Yes. But it’s hard to get fired up about things in the middle, even (especially?) if they are true.

You won’t find me, or any greens member of voter, arguing for coal.

As we’ve already established that the nuclear power industry is an offshoot of the nuclear weapons industry, perhaps Hiroshima and Nagasaki need to be included in the body count.

IP

You could include Hiroshima and Nagasaki but that would be completely illogical and, frankly, ridiculous…

At present solar/ wind/ wave/ whatever cannot provide the power needed. Take away coal and we’re stuffed. As such nothing can be ruled out at this point of time given that populations are simply going to continue to explode. Indeed, all sources must be explored.

Hopefully in the future we can find a true (and perfectly green and safe) alternative source of power. Probably not in my life time but in times well beyond that.

Wrong so many times it is hard to count.

If we are too stupid to stop population growth then we deserve nuclear power and the war, potentially nuclear, that will likely follow overpopulation and competition for resources. And quite possibly in your lifetime. Likely? No. Possible? Yes. Preventable? definitely. Is nuclear power the answer? Not unless it was a really stupid question.

howeph4:27 pm 06 Jan 14

I agree with some parts of your post, but I have to call you on others.

justsomeaussie said :

The greenest technology that exists today that can produce baseload power is still nuclear.

Bulls***.

Renewables plus pumped hydro storage is the greenest technology that can produce baseload power in Australia.

justsomeaussie said :

Solar and wind contrary to what many believe isn’t as green as it’s marketed as the silicon in solar and concrete in wind power is pretty horrible to the environment too.

On silicon you’re not telling the whole story. The energy cost to produce polycrystalline silicon, used by most solar panels, is much lower than for electronics grade monocrystalline silicon required for semi-conductors and more specialised high-cost high efficiency solar panels to which I think you are referring.

As for concrete: Yep, those nuclear power plants don’t use any concrete at all. Their built from timber frames, mud bricks and hemp rope!

justsomeaussie said :

Interestingly there is a negative affect[sic] caused by the boom in solar power and that is that during the day other baseload power generators must be reduced to counter the increased in solar power entering the grid. Due to their relative ease in changing the amount of power they use this means that gas power plants reduce in power whereas coal (the far far worse polluter) keeps going.

If you think of it with solar you have a power generator going from maximum to minimum generation every day meaning that the other generators must do the same which causes a huge inefficiency.

So at the moment solar energy is actually making the problem worse. (it would be far better to have gas and solar/wind, not coal and solar/wind)

Wrong.

“Baseload” is a tricky term and you need to be careful with how you use the term “baseload” or risk the equivocation logical fallacy.

You need to be careful that you don’t confuse:

“baseload” – the minimum amount of power to meet demands based on reasonable expectations of customer requirements; with

“baseload” – the power produced by a baseload plant. Power stations designed to produce power at a fairly constant rate.

I’ll use the first definition.

Because in Australia coal is readily available and cheap, coal power plants have been used to produce significantly more than the “baseload” demand. We can see the effect of this in the fact that even though the output from coal power plants can be reduced we still have an excess in electricity supply at night that we use for pumping water uphill, cheap street lighting and “off-peak” water heating.

Coal generators have been relying upon the greater prices that they can charge during the day to cover the losses that they make at night.

However solar PV produces its power during the day. This reduces the daytime demand, cutting directly into the profitable period of coal generators that need those profits to cover night time losses. That is why Solar PV, combined with wind power and an overall decline in electricity demand, has lead to the premature closure of a number of coal power generation units and plants (it’s also why the generators are pushing the government so hard on reducing or removing the RET. Generators (many of them owned by the State governments) are really hurting, running at a loss, looking at writing down the value of their coal powered generation assets).

justsomeaussie said :

As always the truth lies in the middle.

As always reality is more complex.

justsomeaussie1:36 pm 06 Jan 14

The history lesson here is that uranium was chosen because it produced plutonian which is very useable in nuclear weapons. The cold war drove the R&D and the offshoot was nuclear power.

Sadly due to this linkage the research on other forms of nuclear technology (such as Thorium) has been left behind due to its high cost. Thorium can be used in a reactor where it can eat its own waste and it’s impossible to meltdown as if there is a failure in the system it simply cools down whereas a uranium reactor requires active cooling (which can fail like in Fukushima). Additionally it’s much harder (but not impossible) to produce plutonium in a thorium reactor. However the R&D simply isn’t there yet and only small thorium reactors are being build (by China and India).

All things being equal nuclear technology (including meltdowns) could be far safer than pumping 10 tons of coal dust into the atmosphere everyday instead of producing 10 years of nuclear waste a year (which you can move and store). For all the alarm and calamity that a meltdown causes those impacted are largely small when considering what global sea rises could cause.

The greenest technology that exists today that can produce baseload power is still nuclear. Solar and wind contrary to what many believe isn’t as green as it’s marketed as the silicon in solar and concrete in wind power is pretty horrible to the environment too. But certainly on my house there is solar because it is a great way to distribute the power supply and reduce household costs (just not baseload power).

Interestingly there is a negative affect caused by the boom in solar power and that is that during the day other baseload power generators must be reduced to counter the increased in solar power entering the grid. Due to their relative ease in changing the amount of power they use this means that gas power plants reduce in power whereas coal (the far far worse polluter) keeps going.

If you think of it with solar you have a power generator going from maximum to minimum generation every day meaning that the other generators must do the same which causes a huge inefficiency.

So at the moment solar energy is actually making the problem worse. (it would be far better to have gas and solar/wind, not coal and solar/wind)

As always the truth lies in the middle.

Reply View 1 reply

johnboy1:42 pm 06 Jan 14

Reactor design was also driven by what could be crammed into a submarine which is not ideal for civilian use.

Reply Hide replies

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more

Lawyers

MV Law

Through a spirit of entrepreneurialism, collaboration, and future-forward thinking, MV Law have earned an industry-leading reputation.

Find out more

Mortgage Brokers

Clarity Home Loans

A passionate team of Canberrans helping other Canberrans secure their home loans. No frills, no commissions, no brainer.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more