# Uranium unsafe



## Gringotts Bank

Japan situation proves it.  They took extraordinary safety measures, and now we have a radiation leak.  Who could support that?  No way.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Gringotts Bank said:


> Japan situation proves it.  They took extraordinary safety measures, and now we have a radiation leak.  Who could support that?  No way.




Being alive is unsafe. Jeezuss.

I knew someone with get off on this tack.

Coal is unsafe.
Wood is unsafe
Gas is unsafe
Petrol is unsafe.
Going out in the bloody sun is unsafe
Rain can be unsafe.
Roast bloody duck can be unsafe if thrown from a skyscraper.

Being bloody Green is very unsafe for the rest of us for gawds sake.

gg


----------



## Tanaka

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Being alive is unsafe. Jeezuss.
> 
> I knew someone with get off on this tack.
> 
> Coal is unsafe.
> Wood is unsafe
> Gas is unsafe
> Petrol is unsafe.
> Going out in the bloody sun is unsafe
> Rain can be unsafe.
> Roast bloody duck can be unsafe if thrown from a skyscraper.
> 
> Being bloody Green is very unsafe for the rest of us for gawds sake.
> 
> gg




I was just about to post the same comments but Garpal Gumnut beat me to it.

Have a look at all the nuclear disasters in history and ask yourself how many of those situations could realistically apply to Australia today if we used the latest nuclear technology. 

We don't have 8.9 level earthquakes here. The full details of Fukushima’s No.1 reactor are not understood yet so I don’t want to make any predictions or comments other than it was one of Japan’s oldest reactors being over 40 years old and it was hit by one of the greatest earthquakes in history. Japan has 55 nuclear reactors making it the 3rd biggest user in the world, they also have more earthquakes than any other country. 

Nothing in this world is completely fail safe given the effects of maximum adversity.

Don't forget that uranium is used in hospitals everyday to help save lives.


----------



## GumbyLearner

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Being alive is unsafe. Jeezuss.
> 
> I knew someone with get off on this tack.
> 
> Coal is unsafe.
> Wood is unsafe
> Gas is unsafe
> Petrol is unsafe.
> Going out in the bloody sun is unsafe
> Rain can be unsafe.
> Roast bloody duck can be unsafe if thrown from a skyscraper.
> 
> Being bloody Green is very unsafe for the rest of us for gawds sake.
> 
> gg




All good points GG.

Playing a ukrainian baseball team can be unsafe too.


----------



## Smurf1976

Tanaka said:


> Nothing in this world is completely fail safe given the effects of maximum adversity.



There aren't too many people keener on all things electrical than me (my avatar is a power station control room... ) but I'm not overly keen on nuclear power and here's why.

*Consequences*.

If there is a catastrophic failure at Muja power station (coal-fired, Western Australia) then the lights may go out in Perth, there will be some injuries to workers at the plant, and the rest of the country will hear about it on the news as a minor item.

We can send people in from the nearby towns, Perth or interstate straight away to help treat the injured and start cleaning up the mess and working out how to fix the power station. Beyond those at the plant, there is no real impact on the surrounding area beyond a bit of smoke, a few sirens and some media attention.

Likewise if Torrens Island (gas-fired, Adelaide metro area) blows up then the main issue will be a lack of power in Adelaide with the usual consequences of a blackout. That plus, given that the plant is only a few km from the city area, there will be rather a lot of people trying to get the best view of the fire etc. But nobody not actually inside the plant will be in any real danger from the incident. The main thing it would do is give Adelaide the national news headlines for a day but that's about it apart from an ongoing power shortage.

Same if something bad happens at a hydro plant in Tasmania. If there's a major hydraulic failure at one of the underground power stations then it's no secret that anyone inside won't likely survive. But at an above ground plant they'd simply run out the door and should be OK. Beyond that, it's just a matter of fixing the power station and dealing with the consequences of it not being in service (that is, a power shortage) in the meantime. If it happened somewhere well known like Tarraleah power station, no doubt there'd be a thousand people up there taking photos in no time. And they'd be perfectly safe doing so apart from issues of crating a traffic jam etc.

Contrast that with a nuclear plant failure and the situation is very, very different. A few injured or killed power plant workers and a lack of electricity are the least of concerns when we're talking about something that has the real potential to shorten the lives of millions of people, including many who live nowhere near the site of the power station and may not even know it exists.

TEPCO which operates the damaged plant in Japan also has many gas and hydro power stations, plus some oil and coal generation as well. Some of them have probably sustained some damage due to the earthquake, but you don't hear mention of them on the news and there's a reason for that. Worst case might be a few injured workers inside the plants and the fact that they are out of production for a while with all that entails (that is, no power and a financial loss to the company). But if there's a fire in a coal stockpile or an oil tank leaks then whilst it will pollute the environment and make a mess, it isn't going to cause permanent health damage to millions of people spread over a vast area.

So it comes down to consequences. The odds of a nuclear accident may well be low, but the consequences when it happens are absolutely more serious than a comparable accident at a coal, oil, gas or hydro power station.

I accept that there is a need for nuclear power at this present time, but I regard it as the power source of last resort due to the consequences if (when) something goes seriously wrong. Accidents happen, always have and always will. I'm not totally against nuclear, but I am strongly against using it in any place where a viable alternative exists.

Looking at Australia, we do still have the ability to increase hydro and wind power production (using the two together works well) despite popular belief to the contrary. We could certianly make a contribution to meeting peak system demands through solar thermal generation. And we could get at least some power from otherwise wasted biomass. That's not enough to run the whole country, but it's as much as we'd get from the one or two nuclear reactors that we'd be likely to actually build as an alternative. 

Now, if companies like Linc Energy can make their technology work using coal, and it looks very much as though they've got it worked out, or if we can get hot dry geothermal working, then we have absolutely no need for nuclear power in this country whatsoever. I'd like to see a few $ spent in that direction and give these alternatives a decent chance before we spend a relative fortune on the less than 100% safe nuclear alternative.

Of other countries in the area, New Zealand also has absolutely no real need for nuclear power. They've got plenty of hydro, wind, geothermal etc that could be used instead. Plus they've got a bit of coal, gas and biomass too. NZ doesn't need, and can't afford anyway, to use nuclear power.

As I said, I'm not totally against it. But where there's a viable alternative then nobody in their right mind would prefer to mess about with uranium.


----------



## So_Cynical

Gringotts Bank said:


> Japan situation proves it.  They took extraordinary safety measures, and now we have a radiation leak.  Who could support that?  No way.




Bollocks

--------------

Planes arnt safe cos occasionally they fall outa the sky....yet the aviation industry isn't going to close down tomorrow and neither will the nuclear power industry, however its a given that building nuclear reactors right on the Coastline of any country is a unacceptable risk.

And continuing to build the old standard light water type reactors is also an unacceptable risk....the world needs to move en mass to Thorium powered liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) 

Get a LFTR education people...and behold your future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

Some discussion of this issue over at the Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2890&st=0&sk=t&sd=a


----------



## drsmith

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Being alive is unsafe. Jeezuss.



You have been reading from the same Ewok bible as the Greens.

1) Coal is unsafe. Ewoks don't burn it.
2) Wood is unsafe. Ewoks only burn it in celibration of the destruction of imperial death stars or roasting Jedi Masters.
3) Gas is unsafe. Not quiet true. Ewoks are allowed to fart (I think).
4) Petrol is unsafe. See 1 above.
5) Going out in the bloody sun is unsafe. Very large trees and hairy bodies offer protection. 
6) Rain can be unsafe. Big trees offer some protection and with a brain the size of Australopithecus afarensis, it's a lesser worry.
7) Roast bloody duck can be unsafe if thrown from a skyscraper. Roast anything is unsafe as requires cooking by wood/gas etc. If the Greens were around when Homo Erectus ate that first bit of meat that accidently fell into the fire, they would have objected. Come to think of it, the Greens would have objected about the control of fire.

Being bloody Green is very unsafe for the rest of us for gawds sake. The Greens should have got in 3-million years ago when the rest of us couldn't tell the difference.


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> Planes arnt safe cos occasionally they fall outa the sky....yet the aviation industry isn't going to close down tomorrow and neither will the nuclear power industry



If a plane crashes at Hobart airport tonight then it might kill 100 or 200 people on the plane. There will be no ongoing effects - planes will still be flying into an out of Hobart once any damage to the runway etc is repaired (which couldn't possibly take that long).

If there was a nuclear plant in SA and it blew up then there goes the health of the entire population of Victoria, Tasmania or wherever else the wind happens to be blowing. 

It's not about the likelihood of an accident, but the *consequences* should it occur. 

People die in car crashes on a routine basis. Every now and then an aircraft or a train  crashes somewhere. But no car, train or air crash endangers millions of people or contaminates a vast area of land effectively forever.

The argument for nuclear is like that of a successful trader who suffers a 100% drawdown just once after many years of successful trading. No matter how much money they made, they ultimtely fail due to the consequences of a single event. As with nuclear, it only takes one event with sufficiently large consequences to blow the lot...

Agreed though that thorium makes a lot of sense, at least it does when compared to uranium or plutonium.


----------



## skc

It screams to me that someone screwed up the risk assessment and design specs for this particular nuclear power plant.

Obviously Japan is earthquake prone and it appeared the plant was designed to handle the direct effects of such reasonably well.  Earthquake triggering tsunami isn't at all a rare occurance. Afterall, 'tsunami' is a Japanese word so they must be familiar with the linkage. 

Tsunami brings in sea water. And electricity doesn't mix well with water. Again pretty simple linkage.

Continuity of power supply has to be one of the critical design critera of a nuclear plant.
So how can a nuclear power plant located by the sea only has a backup power system that will fail with water inundation? 

Earthquake => tsunami => flooding of backup power... just doesn't really demand great leap in logic to design against.


----------



## tothemax6

Gringotts Bank said:


> Japan situation proves it.  They took extraordinary safety measures, and now we have a radiation leak.  Who could support that?  No way.



Keep in mind that this is the first reactor they built in that country, if I recall correctly it was built around 1960-1970 by Tokyo Electric. Its doing pretty well if there is only a bit of a leak after being hit by a tsunami!

One could build the most epic nuclear power station ever, but when the requirement is that it 'can take _anything_ and not skip a beat', that's a pretty unreasonably stringent requirement .


----------



## burglar

Bus tour to Chernobyl anyone?

http://wikitravel.org/en/Chernobyl


----------



## Gringotts Bank

You guys are so dumb.  

There are alternatives to nuclear that are completely safe and yet you'd perefer a technology that can render a city and it's residents poisoned for many years.

Righto GG we'll build Australia's next nuclear power plant underneath your home.  Tell us when it starts to warm up will you\?


----------



## Joe Blow

Gringotts Bank said:


> You guys are so dumb.




Rather than insulting the other thread participants, how about responding to the points they have made?


----------



## Gringotts Bank

I did.  How about reading my post?


----------



## Joe Blow

Gringotts Bank said:


> I did.  How about reading my post?




I meant something a little more detailed. Besides, my point was that you should drop the insults.


----------



## Gringotts Bank

ok, solar thermal could power most of California, if given the go ahead and a reasonably sized chunk of desert land to install the mirrors.

If an earthquake or terrorists target it, no harm done, apart from some power outages.

The implementation of alternative fuels is being held back by the big oil and coal businesses who hold self-intere$t ahead of anything else.  They have the money and contacts to manipulate the decision makers.


----------



## Smurf1976

Gringotts Bank said:


> The implementation of alternative fuels is being held back by the big oil and coal businesses who hold self-intere$t ahead of anything else.  They have the money and contacts to manipulate the decision makers.



I think you'll find that those promoting nuclear power are generally opposed to coal and oil as well as renewables. It's been that way as long as nuclear has been in use.


----------



## brty

Using nuclear reactors are perfectly safe if built in the right places. Unfortunately the right places are usually far from population centres, so short cuts are taken.

In Australia the proper place for nuclear reactors would be near existing radiation poisoned places like Maralinga, where in the event of a catastrophic failure, there is not the huge danger to population. This is provided the failure only can be a meltdown and not a huge release of radiation into the atmosphere. Unfortunately the costs of piping seawater and transmission lines to carry the power, would make such a thing uneconomic.

As Smurf has already stated, if the generators in Japan had been coal or gas or oil fired, we would have heard nothing. We would be concentrating on the enormity of the death and destruction from the Earthquake.

The mere fact that there were nuclear reactors in such an obviously poor location, and they had been kept running even though new designs are much 'safer', clearly shows the lack of understanding about safety by the nuclear industry.

brty


----------



## Smurf1976

Reports of another explosion at the Japanese nuclear plant. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/14/3163383.htm

As for nuclear power in general, I think I can safely say that nobody wants a nuclear power station (anywhere) for the sake of it. Nor does anyone really want a coal, oil or gas power station either. And unless you're planning on going fishing, hydro dams aren't something you really want "for the sake of it" either.

What people do want is power at an affordable price and with as few nasty side effects as possible.

But we don't have a perfect power source. Those arguing in favour of nuclear are basically arguing that it is less bad than coal or oil. Just as those who argue in favour of big hydro dams do so because, in their opinion, they are less bad than fossil fuels or nuclear power. Nobody actually wants a pile of nuclear waste of a flooded valley. They are just arguing that their preferred means of power generation is less bad than the alternatives.

Personally, my preference is for things like hydro, wind, wood etc simply because the damage caused can be reversed in a reasonable timeframe. They may well make a mess, but it will be cleaned up relatively easily and quickly. Nobody's going to still be dealing with today's decision to build a dam or wind turbine in 500 years time, indeed they'll struggle to find any evidence that it ever existed by then.

Of the rest, I have a slight preference for coal over oil, gas or nuclear simply because despite all its faults, at least coal isn't likely to start a war and has no military application. Seriously, there's an awful lot of trouble and suffering in the world caused by oil when you think about it  and the same would apply to gas, due to geographic concentration in the same countries, if we used enough of it. At least coal doesn't have those problems despite its other faults.

On a practical note, I think we can assume that there are going to be several reactors in Japan that will never again produce electricity. From an investment perspective, that means an increase in consumption of other fuels, largely LNG and oil in the immediate term.


----------



## joea

Australia has a 30 mega watt research reactor is Sydney.
Check on webb "ANSTO research reactor."
It was modified and restarted in 2007 I think.
Cheers


----------



## skc

Smurf1976 said:


> On a practical note, I think we can assume that there are going to be several reactors in Japan that will never again produce electricity. From an investment perspective, that means an increase in consumption of other fuels, largely LNG and oil in the immediate term.




I just read somewhere that Chernobyl was actually still producing electricity for some 20 years after the incident... amazing.

Although I guess the Japs are less likely going to allow that.


----------



## burglar

skc said:


> I just read somewhere that Chernobyl was actually still producing electricity for some 20 years after the incident... amazing.
> 
> Although I guess the Japs are less likely going to allow that.



Re Chernobyl ... wow!

I'm guessing the Japanese are all over this one:

Pebble Bed Reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor


----------



## awg

After hearing some very hysterical, uninformative stuff on the media

Will post this link which is a scientic explanation/analysis.

Reassuring too, in conclusion that no leak of highly radioactive material is likely

make up your own mind though

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/


----------



## tothemax6

Gringotts Bank said:


> There are alternatives to nuclear that are completely safe and yet you'd perefer a technology that can render a city and it's residents poisoned for many years.



The alternatives do not have the necessary power density to support the required increases in the global power supply. The alternatives are also more costly (the whole idea of energy generation is, in the grand scheme of things, to reduce 'cost', that is - to increase human efficiency).
Until such time as we can synthesize high-efficiency solar cells en-masse in big automated factories, with a low cost, or build a fusion reactor, our best bet is fission, specifically the traveling-wave reactor.


brty said:


> In Australia the proper place for nuclear reactors would be near existing radiation poisoned places like Maralinga, where in the event of a catastrophic failure, there is not the huge danger to population.



Hmm, didn't think of that. Might be a bit hard getting construction crews to work there though .


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

brty said:


> Using nuclear reactors are perfectly safe if built in the right places. Unfortunately the right places are usually far from population centres, so short cuts are taken.
> 
> In Australia the proper place for nuclear reactors would be near existing radiation poisoned places.
> 
> 
> 
> brty




I was thinking of places like Balmain and Wentworth meself.

One must think of the calibre of victims as well as the extent of damage.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976

skc said:


> I just read somewhere that Chernobyl was actually still producing electricity for some 20 years after the incident... amazing.
> 
> Although I guess the Japs are less likely going to allow that.



There were multiple reactors at Chernobyl as is the case with the Japanese power plants.

It's the same with other power stations too. Most coal and gas power stations have multiple generating units, each of which can operate independently of the others. In Australia, there are only a few exceptions to this where there is only a single generating unit - most have multiple units (commonly 2 or 4). It's the same with the larger hydro plants too, though the small ones commonly have only a single turbine.

At Chernobyl, they continued running the undamaged units for many years after the accident. No prizes for guessing that this caused quite a bit of concern in neighbouring countries. So the overall site continued generating electricity, just not as much as it otherwise would have since one reactor was permanently out of service.

Likewise, it is not at all unusual that some of the generating units in any non-nuclear power station are out of service (for maintenance etc) whilst others continue running. Indeed there's almost always something out of service somewhere in any grid, including Australia's. 

Power stations are less reliable and require far more maintenance than you might imagine. We're talking weeks or months per year of shutdowns for individual generating units, not just a day here and there. There's an awful lot of component parts in a coal (or nuclear) plant, hence the downtime (gas and hydro plants need less maintenance, but they still do have issues). 

My point about Japan however is that they are pumping sea water into, I think, 3 reactors and it seems unlikely that they will ever operate again following this. Very clearly they are in a bad state and would require major repairs at the very least. Reading the comments of nuclear experts, it seems that the sea water is clearly an act of desperation, something they are doing knowing that it's not at all desirable (though clearly it's better than ending up with a meltdown). 

Given their age and also the non-technical matters (politics etc), I very much doubt the damaged reactors will ever be repaired. Their working lives are over.

For the remaining reactors at the same site, quite likely they have also suffered some damage following the earthquake. It's just that they weren't operating at the time, so the consequences of such damage are less. At the very least, it seems unlikely that they would resume operation anytime soon (if ever). At a guess, they could probably be fixed but it comes down to economics and politics as to whether or not they ever want to run any ractor at that plant again. If there's an actual meltdown then, for political reasons, I'd be surprised if they didn't scrap the entire plant either straight away or at least within a few years.

So once the current crises with nuclear and the earthquake itself are over, there is likely to be an ongoing issue with having these power stations out of service. Most of the power could be supplied from other non-nuclear sources (oil, gas etc) assuming they can get hold of sufficient fuel to run those plants much harder than would otherwise have been the case. But when plant maintenance is required or demand is unusually high (driven by weather), blackouts are certainly possible.


----------



## Smurf1976

tothemax6 said:


> (the whole idea of energy generation is, in the grand scheme of things, to reduce 'cost', that is - to increase human efficiency)



You've hit the nail on the head there, something I'd guess that 99.99% fail to understand. 

Just generating electricity isn't the aim. You have to be able to do it with the minimum of human effort for it to be worthwhile. Hence the attraction of free flowing oil and gas, easily accessible hydro, coal near the surface and so on. Trouble is, we've pretty much used up those resources, being left with either harder to access (more costly) deposits or alternatives that are also less productive.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Uranium is safe.

I can remember as an old man seeing Bono watch the first man to land on the moon, and I said to meself, any nation that can tolerate Bono is a great nation, and I sobbed, and then I said thanks be to Jeezus I'm not married to a hairdresser.

gg


----------



## Gringotts Bank

*http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126091443.htm
*
*We're not living in the 70's.* *This is 2011.*  Read the above link.

It's a matter of asking "what do we want for ourselves and the planet?" then doing what is necessary to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

You don't just put up with substandard dirty fuels that buggerize the planet.
*
You're all buying what the oil and coal  and uranium companies tell you and that is SO LAME I don't know where to start.*

Garpal, you're living in a make believe world....somewhere in the 1920's.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Gringotts Bank said:


> *http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126091443.htm
> *
> *We're not living in the 70's.* *This is 2011.*  Read the above link.
> 
> It's a matter of asking "what do we want for ourselves and the planet?" then doing what is necessary to MAKE IT HAPPEN.
> 
> You don't just put up with substandard dirty fuels that buggerize the planet.
> *
> You're all buying what the oil and coal  and uranium companies tell you and that is SO LAME I don't know where to start.*
> 
> Garpal, you're living in a make believe world....somewhere in the 1920's.




You are not in touch with your ancestors GB.

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

I would be pushing for more nuclear stations, obviously not on earthquake fault lines.

? Sydney CBD.

gg


----------



## Tanaka

Gringotts Bank said:


> *http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126091443.htm
> *
> *We're not living in the 70's.* *This is 2011.*  Read the above link.
> 
> It's a matter of asking "what do we want for ourselves and the planet?" then doing what is necessary to MAKE IT HAPPEN.
> 
> You don't just put up with substandard dirty fuels that buggerize the planet.
> *
> You're all buying what the oil and coal  and uranium companies tell you and that is SO LAME I don't know where to start.*
> 
> Garpal, you're living in a make believe world....somewhere in the 1920's.




I don't believe Japan has any space for solar and wind power.
Aren't you just buying what the alternative energy companies want?


----------



## Gringotts Bank

I buy what works, for people and the environment.

Too costly??  Well you *DO WHAT"S NECESSARY TO MAKE IT LESS COSTLY.*

My GOD, you think if we didn't throw billions of dollars into research we couldn't get clean fuel at cheaper than fossil fuel prices???????  Come on!!  It would happen so quickly you wouldn't have time to blink.

The whole thing stinks of big business.


----------



## todster

Gringotts Bank said:


> *http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126091443.htm
> *
> *We're not living in the 70's.* *This is 2011.*  Read the above link.
> 
> It's a matter of asking "what do we want for ourselves and the planet?" then doing what is necessary to MAKE IT HAPPEN.
> 
> You don't just put up with substandard dirty fuels that buggerize the planet.
> *
> You're all buying what the oil and coal  and uranium companies tell you and that is SO LAME I don't know where to start.*
> 
> Garpal, you're living in a make believe world....somewhere in the 1920's.




Yeah Townsville????


----------



## So_Cynical

burglar said:


> Re Chernobyl ... wow!
> 
> I'm guessing the Japanese are all over this one:
> 
> Pebble Bed Reactor
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor




Actually no there not all over it, in fact no country has whole heartedly embraced the new nuclear technology's...as far as nuclear goes everyone, Gringotts included is stuck in a time wrap, it seems no one actually wants or needs details...the media is 24/7ing this melt down sensationalism...does anyone here actually have a clue what a containment area is ?understand what its supposed to do?

While the situation is ongoing and has some potential to turn nasty...the likelihood of a worst case scenario is highly unlikely...in fact the quake size and location and Tsunami was the worst case scenario...and at least from the nuclear perspective its not all that bad.

There is the usual negative discussion over at the oil drum (at-least there's some detail there) http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7638

Maybe im being overly pessimistic...maybe this event will be the driver for the new (old in the case of MSR) technology's need to gain acceptance....even Gillard didn't have a clue on Q&A tonight, she seemed to deliberately dumb down her answers on the nuclear questions.


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> in fact the quake size and location and Tsunami was the worst case scenario...and at least from the nuclear perspective its not all that bad.



Safety of these plants (and just about anything else) comes down to probability. This may or may not be the worst case even that ever occurs, but it is certianly not the worst case that is actually possible.

The great problem with this sort of analysis is that there always ends up being some scenario that wasn't foreseen.

There's also the point that the fundamantal objective of such analysis is not to produce 100% certainty of an outcome, since that is not possible. The question is whether you want a 99.8% safe reactor, or whether you are prepared to pay a lot of extra $ for a 99.85% safe one. You can't actually have 100% since that's not possible.


----------



## So_Cynical

Smurf1976 said:


> Safety of these plants (and just about anything else) comes down to probability. This may or may not be the worst case even that ever occurs, but it is certianly not the worst case that is actually possible.
> 
> The great problem with this sort of analysis is that there always ends up being some scenario that wasn't foreseen.
> 
> There's also the point that the fundamantal objective of such analysis is not to produce 100% certainty of an outcome, since that is not possible. The question is whether you want a 99.8% safe reactor, or whether you are prepared to pay a lot of extra $ for a 99.85% safe one. You can't actually have 100% since that's not possible.




Smurf

with respect...a 8.9 undersea quake (biggest in 1000 years in Japan) 100 clicks off the coast, 6 meter Tsunami with 2 Nuke plants at sea level right on the coast in direct line of the Tsunami...i really do think this qualifies as a realistic worst case scenario...lets save the fantasy stuff for the Charlie Sheen thread. 

The quake made the reactors SCRAM thus rendering the reactor cores as reasonably safe...the system worked on the whole, shame about the plant placement at sea level on the water front...safety is always a game of percentages and money is always given alot of consideration when determining margins of safety.


----------



## skc

So_Cynical said:


> with respect...a 8.9 undersea quake (biggest in 1000 years in Japan) 100 clicks off the coast, 6 meter Tsunami with 2 Nuke plants at sea level right on the coast in direct line of the Tsunami...i really do think this qualifies as a realistic worst case scenario...




No...  Godzilla hasn't appear yet.

Seriously, you are correct that this is a realistic worst case scenario. The problem is they didn't think of designing against it.

It's never easy to write a design specs, but someone screw this one up that's for sure.


----------



## So_Cynical

skc said:


> No...  Godzilla hasn't appear yet.
> 
> Seriously, you are correct that this is a realistic worst case scenario. The problem is they didn't think of designing against it.
> 
> It's never easy to write a design specs, but someone screw this one up that's for sure.




The thing is i know there's some place i think in southern Japan that actually has a sea wall built with gates that automatically shut if an earthquake is detected...its a anti Tsunami wall....Tsunami is a word of Japanese origin, and yet they didn't think it could happen :dunno: go figure.

To make matters worse it now looks like the Nuke plants didn't have adequate back up cooling procedures in place...like a simple high velocity (water tight/Tsunami proof) diesel pump would of done the trick but they didn't have one...incredible. 

------------------------

Anyway looks like its semi official...every-thing's under control.



			
				bravenewclimate.com said:
			
		

> In the last 48 hours, Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power Company) has carried out repairs to the emergency core coolant systems of units 1, 2 and 4 and one by one these have come back into action. Unit 1 announced cold shutdown at 1.24 am today and unit 2 followed at 3.52 am. Repairs at unit 4 are now complete and Tepco said that gradual temperature reduction started at 3.42pm. An evacuation zone extends to ten kilometres around the plant, but this is expected to be rescinded when all four units are verified as stable in cold shutdown conditions.




http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/15/fukushima-15-march-summary/

Ah i just noticed someone agreeing with me in the comments.



Mark Duffett said:


> One thing that can be said at this point is that we are witnessing the worst case scenario. To the perfect storm of old reactor (design), magnitude 9 quake and 10 metre tsunami can apparently be added incompetence in at least one aspect, if the ABC is to be believed:


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

So_Cynical said:


> Smurf
> 
> with respect...a 8.9 undersea quake (biggest in 1000 years in Japan) 100 clicks off the coast, 6 meter Tsunami with 2 Nuke plants at sea level right on the coast in direct line of the Tsunami...i really do think this qualifies as a realistic worst case scenario...lets save the fantasy stuff for the Charlie Sheen thread.
> 
> The quake made the reactors SCRAM thus rendering the reactor cores as reasonably safe...the system worked on the whole, shame about the plant placement at sea level on the water front...safety is always a game of percentages and money is always given alot of consideration when determining margins of safety.




I would agree with you SC.

A poor placement for a NR.

One wonders though if the greenies had not forced the guvment of Nippon to place it in a dangerous out of the way place.

Being green can be dangerous.

gg


----------



## So_Cynical

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I would agree with you SC.
> 
> A poor placement for a NR.
> 
> One wonders though if the greenies had not forced the guvment of Nippon to place it in a dangerous out of the way place.
> 
> Being green can be dangerous.
> 
> gg




GG in the photos both plants have little harbours in front of them with sea walls and all....im thinking this is so Nuclear material can be brought in and taken off site by sea, thus avoiding any issues with the locals and activists? 

I mean you wouldn't bother building the harbours if you didn't need them, if there wasn't a propose for them? perhaps this was another reason for building the plants right on the beach front...perhaps in this case, green and political considerations have been given greater weight than the margin for safety.


----------



## skc

So_Cynical said:


> Anyway looks like its semi official...every-thing's under control.
> 
> http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/15/fukushima-15-march-summary/
> 
> Ah i just noticed someone agreeing with me in the comments.




Sorry disagreeing with you here. That's the wrong power plant.

The one that didn't blow its top.


----------



## So_Cynical

skc said:


> Sorry disagreeing with you here. That's the wrong power plant.
> 
> The one that didn't blow its top.






			
				http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/15/fukushima-15-march-summary/ said:
			
		

> Attention has centred on units #1, 2 and 3 of the *Fukushima Daiichi plant* (all Boiling Water Reactors built in the 1970s). Current concern is focused on unit #2 (more below). Units 4, 5 and 6 at the site were not in service at the time of the earthquake and their situation is stable.
> 
> At a nearby plant, *Fukushima Daiini*, the situation is now under control, and units are in, or approaching, cold shutdown. I do not expect any further significant developments at that site




The latest news straight from the owners and operators of the 2 plants TEPCO Tokyo Electric Power Company.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/index-e.html

Boths plants many reactors...all ok by the looks of it.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/15/fukushima-15-march-summary/


----------



## skc

So_Cynical said:


> The latest news straight from the owners and operators of the 2 plants TEPCO Tokyo Electric Power Company.
> 
> http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/index-e.html
> 
> Boths plants many reactors...all ok by the looks of it.
> 
> http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/15/fukushima-15-march-summary/




The 4 reactors are ok at Fukushima Daini (means No. 2) power plant. That never had any issues.

The problems are at Fukushima Dai-ichi...

That site is out of date anyway. There was problem at Unit 4 as well whereas the article seems to think it was ok.


----------



## brty

So_Cynical,

You probably need to live up to your name with the information that is fed from those sites.

The bravenewclimate site mentions.....



> Units 4, 5 and 6 at the site were not in service at the time of the earthquake and their situation is stable




Yet the PM of Japan stated there was a fire in the spent fuel pool of No. 4 and just a little while ago Nos. 5 + 6 had rising temperatures in their spent fuel pools.

The stupidity of having spent fuel pools above the reactor cores is unbelievable, along with the fact that the Boxing-day Tsunami clearly showed that high level earthquakes and large tsunamis are clearly possible in these subduction zones, yet nothing has been done to protect these reactors from this possibility.

brty


----------



## GumbyLearner

Plenty of unsafe ways to use energy. It's just that some are more economical than others.


----------



## DB008

brty said:


> *The stupidity of having spent fuel pools above the reactor cores is unbelievable*, along with the fact that the Boxing-day Tsunami clearly showed that high level earthquakes and large tsunamis are clearly possible in these subduction zones, yet nothing has been done to protect these reactors from this possibility.
> 
> brty




I also heard about this on a ABC interview last night. Putting the spent fuel rods "above" the reactor. U-N-B-E-L-I-E-V-A-B-L-E


----------



## Gringotts Bank

There was a guy just interviewed on George Negus' show, a former energy adviser to the US govt.

When asked "why don't we just do away with all these polluting fuels and use solar and wind etc." he replied...

"Because solar is identified with sissies".

He went on to say that men want to feel like they use big rough dirty fuels like coal and nukes.  He had a bit of a laugh to himself.  Wise old man. 

I just want to say: guys, you can still be a man and use renewable energies.  
I'd go for solar in a second if offered it, and I have never waxed my eyebrows, I don't wear any jewelry, I don't fuss around clothes shops like a metrosexual, and I never will.


----------



## So_Cynical

For anyone interested in the facts.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-16-march-summary/



			
				bravenewclimate.com said:
			
		

> /(2011/03/16/) First, the situation is clearly (but slowly) stabilising. As each day passes, the amount of thermal heat (caused by radioactive decay of the fission products) that remains in the reactor fuel assemblies decreases exponentially. When the reactors SCRAMed on 11 March after the earthquake, and went sub-critical, their power levels dropped by about 95 % of peak output (the nuclear fission process was no longer self-sustaining). Over the past 5 days, the energy in the fuel rods dropped by another ~97 %




The above is what's not getting reported by the world's media...the lies that have been fed to the masses over the last few day by the media is nothing short of absolutely reprehensible.  im genuinely appalled that even SBS has fallen into the trap of simplistic "headline" reporting...tonight SBS's reporter in Tokyo delivered his 1 minute piece to camera explaining that "the situation was deteriorating by the hour" and this after saying the exact same thing the night before. i mean how long can a situation be deteriorating by the hour and yet not come to a conclusion?

LOL situation deteriorating by the hour with all the reactors cores sub critical and safe since 15 minutes after the quake on day one. and yet no news organisation is reporting this....the channel 7 news said tonight that the number 4 reactor was on fire, apparently the building housing the number 4 reactor had a small fire that actually self extinguished, and somehow thru the power of the news this gets turned into...the reactor is on fire.

What did TEPCO have to say about the fire?...the news release is below.


Press Release (Mar 16,2011)
Fire occurrence at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 4 (2nd Release)



> Press Release (Mar 16,2011)
> Fire occurrence at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 4 (2nd Release)
> 
> 
> At approximately 5:45 am, a TEPCO employee discovered a fire at
> the northwest corner of the Nuclear Reactor Building while transporting
> a battery to the central control room of Unit 4 of Fukushima Daiichi
> Nuclear Power Station.
> TEPCO immediately reported this incident to the fire department and
> the local government. In addition, TEPCO also contacted related parties
> about this incident and began immediate preparations to extinguish
> the fire. (previously announced)
> 
> However, during an inspection at approximately 6:15 am, TEPCO staff found
> no signs of fire. The area will be kept under strict surveillance.




http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031606-e.html


----------



## Gringotts Bank

On the ABC news, they said TEPCO had a history of covering up information from the public.

Just what you need in a nuclear power company.  Laughable.


----------



## Whiskers

So_Cynical said:


> For anyone interested in the facts.
> 
> http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-16-march-summary/
> 
> 
> 
> The above is what's not getting reported by the world's media...the lies that have been fed to the masses over the last few day by the media is nothing short of absolutely reprehensible.  im genuinely appalled that even SBS has fallen into the trap of simplistic "headline" reporting...tonight SBS's reporter in Tokyo delivered his 1 minute piece to camera explaining that "the situation was deteriorating by the hour" and this after saying the exact same thing the night before. i mean how long can a situation be deteriorating by the hour and yet not come to a conclusion?
> 
> LOL situation deteriorating by the hour with all the reactors cores sub critical and safe since 15 minutes after the quake on day one. and yet no news organisation is reporting this....the channel 7 news said tonight that the number 4 reactor was on fire, apparently the building housing the number 4 reactor had a small fire that actually self extinguished, and somehow thru the power of the news this gets turned into...the reactor is on fire.




I agree So_Cynical. 

I heard that information somewhere too and it just had a ring of credability to it that most of the other reporting did not. 

All the experts I've heard interviewed down play any serious consequences and dismiss any chance of a Chernobyl size disaster. It's just taking time to work through checking and repairing the mechanisms to close it all down. 

But some of the armchair expert reporters just keep beating up, sensationalising the explosion and radiation risk. 

But having said all that, I'm not a strong pro nuclear energy proponent... but one has to build and operate these things to be able to improve on them.


----------



## So_Cynical

Gringotts Bank said:


> On the ABC news, they said TEPCO had a history of covering up information from the public.
> 
> Just what you need in a nuclear power company.  Laughable.




Evidence of this..TEPCO's history of cover ups?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

So_Cynical said:


> For anyone interested in the facts.
> 
> http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-16-march-summary/
> 
> 
> 
> The above is what's not getting reported by the world's media...the lies that have been fed to the masses over the last few day by the media is nothing short of absolutely reprehensible.  im genuinely appalled that even SBS has fallen into the trap of simplistic "headline" reporting...tonight SBS's reporter in Tokyo delivered his 1 minute piece to camera explaining that "the situation was deteriorating by the hour" and this after saying the exact same thing the night before. i mean how long can a situation be deteriorating by the hour and yet not come to a conclusion?
> 
> LOL situation deteriorating by the hour with all the reactors cores sub critical and safe since 15 minutes after the quake on day one. and yet no news organisation is reporting this....the channel 7 news said tonight that the number 4 reactor was on fire, apparently the building housing the number 4 reactor had a small fire that actually self extinguished, and somehow thru the power of the news this gets turned into...the reactor is on fire.
> 
> What did TEPCO have to say about the fire?...the news release is below.
> 
> 
> Press Release (Mar 16,2011)
> Fire occurrence at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 4 (2nd Release)
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031606-e.html






Whiskers said:


> I agree So_Cynical.
> 
> I heard that information somewhere too and it just had a ring of credability to it that most of the other reporting did not.
> 
> All the experts I've heard interviewed down play any serious consequences and dismiss any chance of a Chernobyl size disaster. It's just taking time to work through checking and repairing the mechanisms to close it all down.
> 
> But some of the armchair expert reporters just keep beating up, sensationalising the explosion and radiation risk.
> 
> But having said all that, I'm not a strong pro nuclear energy proponent... but one has to build and operate these things to be able to improve on them.




Agree So Cynical, 

Just chill mate.

It will be all sorted.

Big Brother has it all in hand, it's just not your big Left Brother, that's whats pissing you off. 

It's a nice soft Fox.

And it will be sorted.

gg


----------



## Gringotts Bank

Garpal, you are one of the ones I was referring to in my post above.  So I'm glad you understood that and took the bait.

You form your whole identity around being an old school non-sequitur slinging gangster-wanna be.

What underlies this is that your afraid someone might think that _you're_ soft.  Isn't that true?  Didn't your daddy always tell you to be a tough man and handle criticisms with non-sequiturs?

I have no issues with my identity.  I don't need to attach it to one thing or another the way you do.

One day I'm a fox, the next I'm something totally different.  You on the other hand are rigidly attached to who you _think _you are.


----------



## nunthewiser

LOL .

Priceless.

this reminds me of one of those dolls where you pull the string and it comes to life 

blessya


I think we need a gold star button facilty thanks Joe.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Gringotts Bank said:


> Garpal, you are one of the ones I was referring to in my post above.  So I'm glad you understood that and took the bait.
> 
> You form your whole identity around being an old school non-sequitur slinging gangster-wanna be.
> 
> What underlies this is that your afraid someone might think that _you're_ soft.  Isn't that true?  Didn't your daddy always tell you to be a tough man and handle criticisms with non-sequiturs?
> 
> I have no issues with my identity.  I don't need to attach it to one thing or another the way you do.
> 
> One day I'm a fox, the next I'm something totally different.  You on the other hand are rigidly attached to who you _think _you are.






Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree So Cynical,
> 
> Just chill mate.
> 
> It will be all sorted.
> 
> Big Brother has it all in hand, it's just not your big Left Brother, that's whats pissing you off.
> 
> It's a nice soft Fox.
> 
> And it will be sorted.
> 
> gg




Read it again mate.

Closely.

Otherwise I may be provoked in to depicting you as a knitter at the guillotine.

btw I never read your post mate, but will get around to it.

gg


----------



## Gringotts Bank

Tepco ref was on ABC 7pm news.  Maybe they will have it on their late news also.  There's plenty on Google about tepco cover ups.

Tepco bosses should be held responsible for anyone who ends up with radiation sickness or cancer as a result.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Gringotts Bank said:


> Tepco ref was on ABC 7pm news.  Maybe they will have it on their late news also.  There's plenty on Google about tepco cover ups.
> 
> Tepco bosses should be held responsible for anyone who ends up with radiation sickness or cancer as a result.




OK time is short. I cannot read every post on ASF.

But

Mate

You are a knitter.

Give some alternative solutions.

gg


----------



## Gringotts Bank

My alternative, again, is solar thermal.

My gripe is that progress on alternative fuel implementation is held back by big business, and that this sort of self-centered attitude can result in unnecessary deaths.  None yet, but they will come.  The radiation readings are extremely high.

None of us can afford to reject alternative fuels on the basis that: "greens also like them therefore they must be sissy and useless".  And yet this is exactly what seems to happen in governments.  The guy was a senior energy advisor.

Something like 20% of the World's nuclear reactors lie on fault lines.  That, plus the fact that we are seeing massive increase in the rate of natural disasters is enough for me to question whether nuclear should ever be used again in those areas.

We can't (any of us) choose this energy or that energy  for our future based upon "well I'm a coal/oil kind of guy",  in just the same way that people should not say "I like solar cos I'm an alternative kind of guy".  The choice must be made INDEPENDENT of personal identity.


----------



## Julia

Gringotts Bank said:


> There was a guy just interviewed on George Negus' show, a former energy adviser to the US govt.
> 
> When asked "why don't we just do away with all these polluting fuels and use solar and wind etc." he replied...
> 
> "Because solar is identified with sissies".



What?  So you are now quoting this single comment by one individual as though it were the last word in truth?  That's just quite silly.

I'm sure the population at large and governments everywhere would be all too ready to adopt solar and wind * if they were capable of supplying the large baseload power we need*.   At least at this stage, this simply isn't possible as I understand it.
I don't think it's anything at all to do with being sissy and am surprised you, who is usually sensible, should advocate such a suggestion.



Gringotts Bank said:


> On the ABC news, they said TEPCO had a history of covering up information from the public.
> 
> Just what you need in a nuclear power company.  Laughable.



Can you clarify what is laughable here?   Are you saying it's laughable that TEPCO should have a history of covering up info, something I don't find at all surprising, or are you saying it's laughable the ABC should suggest such a thing?


----------



## Julia

Gringotts Bank said:


> Garpal, you are one of the ones I was referring to in my post above.  So I'm glad you understood that and took the bait.
> 
> You form your whole identity around being an old school non-sequitur slinging gangster-wanna be.
> 
> What underlies this is that your afraid someone might think that _you're_ soft.  Isn't that true?  Didn't your daddy always tell you to be a tough man and handle criticisms with non-sequiturs?
> 
> I have no issues with my identity.  I don't need to attach it to one thing or another the way you do.
> 
> One day I'm a fox, the next I'm something totally different.  You on the other hand are rigidly attached to who you _think _you are.




Isn't this a thread about uranium safety or otherwise?
Why the need to deviate into personal insults which neither enhance the discussion or you as someone delivering said insults?


----------



## Gringotts Bank

Julia, 

I see it with people all the time.  

Some think "well if I vote liberal and I live in the inner east, I'm wealthy, so I guess that makes me a supporter of old school carbon based fuels or nuclear".  An automatic unconscious association.  

Or... "well I'm young and I live in an 'alternative' city-fringe suburb, I don't work or wash my hair and I resist everything old school, so i guess that means I'm into alternative fuels".

People vote like this, spend money like this, conduct every aspect of their lives according to where they think they fit in the social order....instead of THINKING.

Laughable that they should be allowed to build reactor stations in the first place after past problems with transparency.

What is the thread about, and why did I get personal?  Because people get rigidly attached to a view without even considering what is best for the population and the planet.  Am i rigidly attached to solar thermal?  No.  I'd choose it in a second over nuclear, but the moment something better comes along, well I'm on that.  No getting stuck.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Gringotts Bank said:


> Julia,
> 
> I see it with people all the time.
> 
> Some think "well if I vote liberal and I live in the inner east, I'm wealthy, so I guess that makes me a supporter of old school carbon based fuels or nuclear".  An automatic unconscious association.
> 
> Or... "well I'm young and I live in an 'alternative' city-fringe suburb, I don't work or wash my hair and I resist everything old school, so i guess that means I'm into alternative fuels".
> 
> People vote like this, spend money like this, conduct every aspect of their lives according to where they think they fit in the social order....instead of THINKING.
> 
> Laughable that they should be allowed to build reactor stations in the first place after past problems with transparency.




I can hear your passion, and respect it, let's flesh out fact.

gg


----------



## Gringotts Bank

I also apologize for being personal.

We've got people's lives to consider and I get angry when alternatives could have been fast tracked by governments who were too busy pandering to big business interests.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Gringotts Bank said:


> I also apologize for being personal.
> 
> We've got people's lives to consider and I get angry when alternatives could have been fast tracked by governments who were too busy pandering to big business interests.




I am in complete agreement with you. On this.

gg


----------



## Julia

Gringotts Bank said:


> I also apologize for being personal.
> 
> We've got people's lives to consider and I get angry when alternatives could have been fast tracked by governments who were too busy pandering to big business interests.



Passion is good when it's based on thoughtful consideration.  I understand how you feel, though do rather disagree that the average person lacks the capacity to think for themselves.  I believe most Australians are much smarter politically than we usually give them credit for.

I personally think there is way less pandering to big business than there is pandering to the bloody Greens with their total lack of comprehension of economic reality.


----------



## Gringotts Bank

I'd prefer not to get worked up (passionate as you call it), but there we are.  Must be a sore spot for me.

What about this for economic reality:  instead of handing out billions of dollars so that everyone can buy a big screen tv, give it to the CSIRO and hound them every single day until they come up with something cheaper, using existing technologies.  If a man can be put on the moon in the 1960's then advances can be made in technology to improve running/set up costs of alternative fuels.  It should have been done 10 years ago.  The hardware is all ready to go - it works and it's extremely efficient (solar thermal anyway).  But we know what happens when you defy BHP and RIO with a profits tax.... out you go, just like Rudd.

Pollies are just pawns for big business.  'Twas ever thus.


----------



## Tanaka

Gringotts Bank said:


> We've got people's lives to consider and I get angry when alternatives could have been fast tracked by governments who were too busy pandering to big business interests.




True, but don't forget that all Australians have contributed to alternative energy companies. For example GDY wouldn't have survived the last ten years without government grants. 10 years and 100s of millions of trying to poor water down holes in order to make enough power for a couple of houses. To the average investor this hardly seems like a risk adverse investment.

I'd love to no end a clean world rid of fossil fuels.

I respect your ethics. 

I still support the development of clean and safe nuclear energy. Once all the facts have been examined in Japan, engineers and builders of nuclear reactors are going to be better prepared. There will be positives gained. 

Your original post was a statement that uranium is unsafe. Yes, uranium can be unsafe, but that doesn't mean we should stop developing a technology that continues to improve and meet the needs of a demanding electricity hungry world.


----------



## Out Too Soon

A modern (not 1970s) built Nuclear plant is far better than a dozen coal belching power plants any day. We'd all rather Solar/wind/tidal etc but this is 2011 not 2031. It's time my Green friends got real, educated themselves & backed the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Smurf1976

Out Too Soon said:


> A modern (not 1970s) built Nuclear plant is far better than a dozen coal belching power plants any day. We'd all rather Solar/wind/tidal etc but this is 2011 not 2031. It's time my Green friends got real, educated themselves & backed the lesser of two evils.



I'm no expert on nuclear reactors, but my understanding is that nothing fundamental has changed in design or construction over the years that makes that would make a modern reactor completely earthquake proof.

From a financial perspective, you'd need to take a lot of the safety systems and design out of reactors for them to be viable economically. That is, they are way too expensive already, without trying to make them earthquake proof as well. No surprise then to find that new ones are being built primarily in countries where the people have no say in such matters, labour is cheap and so on.


----------



## jimmyizgod

Just thought id contribute with some trivia: 67 km² of solar panels could satisfy the whole of australias power needs.


----------



## pointr

jimmyizgod said:


> Just thought id contribute with some trivia: 67 km² of solar panels could satisfy the whole of australias power needs.




I cant comment on the truth of this statement, but would ask; what kind of accumulator / storage device is also needed for when the sun isn't shining?


----------



## Smurf1976

pointr said:


> I cant comment on the truth of this statement, but would ask; what kind of accumulator / storage device is also needed for when the sun isn't shining?



The practical option, assuming we want something that actually works and is reasoanbly affordable, is pumped storage hydro. Contrary to the belief of many, yes we do have suitable locations to build them.


----------



## So_Cynical

Gringotts Bank said:


> people get rigidly attached to a view without even considering what is best for the population and the planet.  Am i rigidly attached to solar thermal?  No.  I'd choose it in a second over nuclear, but the moment something better comes along, well I'm on that.  No getting stuck.




Seeing that your not attached to any view and are well versed on the alternatives perhaps you could answer a couple of questions for me?

Question 1: why is a LFT reactor inherently safer than a LW reactor?

Question 2: what is a LFTR  ice plug and what is it supposed to do?

Question 3: Why is it near impossible for a successfully shut down LWR to go into a runaway meltdown?


----------



## Gringotts Bank

Ask someone who knows about nuclear reactors.  Or there's a website, called Google.  You can find it here: www.Google.com


----------



## Julia

jimmyizgod said:


> Just thought id contribute with some trivia: 67 km² of solar panels could satisfy the whole of australias power needs.




Can you provide some authoritative references for that statement?


----------



## Gringotts Bank

Ausra has built a 175mw large scale plant.

Read about it here, but only if you want to.  No pressure!  

http://news.cnet.com/Solar-thermal-...uture/2100-11392_3-6206822.html?tag=mncol;txt

They don't mention it in this 2007 article but they have developed a way to store energy during the night using molten salts.

So it has 24 hr output and is getting very close to matching fossils fuels for efficiency.

http://mmadan.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/molten-salt-takes-solar-thermal-into-24x7-mode/

This is a good one ^^.
The idea of being able to power Australia this way seems quite feasible,


----------



## So_Cynical

Gringotts Bank said:


> Ask someone who knows about nuclear reactors.  Or there's a website, called Google.  You can find it here: www.Google.com




Exactly...you haven't got a clue and yet feel the need to make statements like 



			
				Gringotts Bank said:
			
		

> people get rigidly attached to a view without even considering what is best for the population and the planet. Am i rigidly attached to solar thermal? No. I'd choose it in a second over nuclear, but the moment something better comes along, well I'm on that. No getting stuck.




Something better has come along and you have dismissed it without any understanding of it...simply because it involves a nuclear reaction, nothing wrong with having an opinion just nice to back it up with something.


----------



## tothemax6

Gringotts Bank said:


> Ausra has built a 175mw large scale plant.
> 
> Read about it here, but only if you want to.  No pressure!
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/Solar-thermal-...uture/2100-11392_3-6206822.html?tag=mncol;txt
> 
> They don't mention it in this 2007 article but they have developed a way to store energy during the night using molten salts.
> 
> So it has 24 hr output and is getting very close to matching fossils fuels for efficiency.
> 
> http://mmadan.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/molten-salt-takes-solar-thermal-into-24x7-mode/
> 
> This is a good one ^^.
> The idea of being able to power Australia this way seems quite feasible,



Efficiency perhaps, but price? Low price is the ultimate in efficiency, from an economic perspective.  

Besides, whats with people always saying 'power Australia'? The line of thinking behind this is completely off. Australia is not a machine, which just happened to be there, and needs to be powered by cranking its shaft. Australia is a collection of individuals, each working to better their lot in life. It is because this betterment _incidentally_ involves electricity generation (electricity is currently the most efficient means of transporting and manipulating energy) which _incidentally_ happens to be most efficiently achieved by burning coal, that we have more coal stations than other types of stations. 

If solar was a more efficient way of supplying this betterment of life, it would be used. Think of it this way: if it costs a man 5000 days of labor to make a solar cell that will halve his future labor requirements, or 1000 days of labor to build a coal burner that will do the same - which will he choose? That is what price is. 

Until they can spew out solar cells at low prices, Coal wins, Uranium wins.


----------



## Smurf1976

tothemax6 said:


> If solar was a more efficient way of supplying this betterment of life, it would be used. Think of it this way: if it costs a man 5000 days of labor to make a solar cell that will halve his future labor requirements, or 1000 days of labor to build a coal burner that will do the same - which will he choose? That is what price is.
> 
> Until they can spew out solar cells at low prices, Coal wins, Uranium wins.



Actually, it's not the cost of making them that is the killer. Rather, it is the insistence that x % annual return on investment be made.

If you look at it purely in terms of labour inputs then wind, hydro and brown coal are all pretty clear winners. But once you add in the requirement for a return on up-front investment then they end up unprofitable.

That's a fundamental change in the way the power industry does business now as opposed to in the past. Go back to the boom days of the SECV in Victoria and HEC in Tasmania and there is one rather glaring point to note. The target rate of return on invested capital was ZERO. The whole concept was that of break even over the life of the power schemes which, in the case of Tas, was a design life of 90 years (30 - 40 years for brown coal in Vic). Actually making a profit was never intended, and if it happened then charges were simply reduced (which actually did happen) to ensure that the profit was eliminated the following year.

Then the utilities were dragged kicking and screaming into the world of financialisation. The SECV no longer exists at all, whilst the HEC is a shadow of what it once was. Brown coal is uneconomic, and nobody's likely to build any big new hydro schemes anytime soon either.

Worth noting that the same thing happened overseas with nuclear power. Once the notion emerged that a profit was to be made on invested capital, that was pretty much the end of it for many utilities. As with brown coal and nuclear, it just doesn't stack up in such a financial environment.

It's the financial system that is stopping alternative energy, not the technologies per se. We can already generate electricity with less labour than is required for black coal or gas, but the financial system rewards a reduction in up front cost rather than a reduction in total labour inputs.


----------



## Gringotts Bank

I know it's really hard to click a link, so I'll click it for you guys.  Ooooh that was hard, you're right!

What?!  What's this???!!

"solar *thermal *power plants can do so for around 13 cents per kilowatt hour, according to the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  This is only marginally more expensive than the average U.S. price for coal-generated electricity in 2008 of 11 cents per kilowatt hour".  

There's more on the links, but don't click them if you've made up your mind prematurely.

Meanwhile, back in Japan...

Oh that's right I don't know how a nuclear reactor works!  Therefore I shouldn't say that leaking radiation is dangerous/ Uh huh.

Solar thermal is totally different to solar photovolaics but I'm pretty sure I've said that before also.


----------



## Gringotts Bank

Radiation in Tokyo water supply is twice the safe levels for babies (oh I better quote my source in case I get asked - ABC news, 24 Mar 2011).  I guess some of the babies just get cancer later on eh?  Oh well.  No worries. Let's try thorium instead!!  Yayy!  Anything but renewable, safe environmentally sound energy sources.


----------



## Smurf1976

Gringotts Bank said:


> I know it's really hard to click a link, so I'll click it for you guys.  Ooooh that was hard, you're right!
> 
> What?!  What's this???!!
> 
> "solar *thermal *power plants can do so for around 13 cents per kilowatt hour, according to the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  This is only marginally more expensive than the average U.S. price for coal-generated electricity in 2008 of 11 cents per kilowatt hour".



I do see a valid role for solar thermal certainly, but in the Australian context 13 or 11 cents per kWh is far too expensive to be viable at present. It's comparable to nuclear costs, but more expensive than coal or gas.

Costs for new coal or gas power plants (baseload) in Qld / NSW / Vic are in the order of 3.7 to 4.2 cents per kWh. Costs are a bit higher in the other states due to lack of scale and, in WA's case, high natural gas prices.

The important point though is that the gap between solar thermal and coal / gas has greatly reduced over the years and continues to diminish. Once we get what now seems the inevitable surge in gas and coal prices in SE Australia, the gap gets even smaller. In other words, it's only a matter of time...


----------



## Gringotts Bank

smurf, how could the differential (solar thermal vs coal) be so small in the US but large here?  

Or put another way, how could coal cost 11c per kWH in the US and only cost approx. 4 c per kWH here?

What I'm getting at it this:  the "cost" must be calculated using different formulas.


----------



## Smurf1976

Gringotts Bank said:


> What I'm getting at it this:  the "cost" must be calculated using different formulas.



I suspect you are right there. 

I'm not sure what is accepted practice in the US, but in Australia it is basically taken to be (a) the cost of building the plant spread across its lifetime output (b) annual return on investment spread across annual output (c) cost of operation and maintenance.

The Australian industry has basically always had a cost minimisation focus. There was always more competition between the state-run utilities than most realised in their pursuit of manufacturing industry location in their respective states. This was most extreme in Tasmania by far, to the point that it became the state's only real economic development policy for literally half a century, but it was certainly a very real activity of the SECV and ETSA as well.

To a lesser extent, the other states played the same game, though that was largely in the context of trying to stop the interstate processing of local minerals in the case of Qld and WA (though to this day the largest electricity users in NSW, Vic and Tas are all processing minerals produced in WA or Qld).

Now in the National Electricity Market, commercial pressures have retained the same thought process amongst the generators, albeit for the entirely different reason of profit.  

In the US I would imagine that the situation is very much different. They've got massive regulatory complexity for a start, and I'd expect they probably have higher rates of return on invested capital as well. 

They also don't have the situation where a large part of the electricity market is highly price sensitive whereas in Australia we have a lot of big loads that could easily relocate overseas if prices increased. That is most extreme in Tasmania where the majority of total load on the grid is highly price sensitive (electro-metallurgical industry, household heating and hot water), but it is also a very real situation in Qld, NSW and Vic as well. WA could sort of be added to that list, though in WA it's not so straightforward with many of the big users generating their own electricity on site.

In short, the Australian electricity generation industry is cheap and always has been. Much of the consumption occurs only because it is cheap, such that keeping prices down is a two-way interdependency between generators and major energy users. For this reason, even the privately owned power stations in Victoria are not unknown to engage in what could best be described as marginally profitable "state development" type activities that one would normally associate with government.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

As a layperson.

I consider it safe for Australia.

gg


----------



## Tysonboss1

Smurf1976 said:


> If a plane crashes at Hobart airport tonight then it might kill 100 or 200 people on the plane. There will be no ongoing effects




only 28 people died as a result of chernobyl, If 200 people died in that plane crash it is 7 times worse. Add to that figure the 100 people that die each year in the greater sydney area from air pollution (planes, trains, trucks, cars and power stations) and suddenly carbon based fuels look like the biggest killer



Gringotts Bank said:


> Radiation in Tokyo water supply is twice the safe levels for babies (oh I better quote my source in case I get asked - ABC news, 24 Mar 2011).  I guess some of the babies just get cancer later on eh?  Oh well.  No worries. Let's try thorium instead!!  Yayy!  Anything but renewable, safe environmentally sound energy sources.




Yep, so some iodine 131 has been detected, big deal, It has a half life of only 8 days.

and the levels are so small that it is nothing to worry about, to recieve a dangerous dose of the emitted Beta particles you would need to be exposed for weeks at current detected levels, But iodine leaves the body in 2 days and as I said the leaked idione 131 is decaying at a half life of 8 days so you do the math.


----------



## tothemax6

Smurf1976 said:


> It's the financial system that is stopping alternative energy, not the technologies per se. We can already generate electricity with less labour than is required for black coal or gas, but the financial system rewards a reduction in up front cost rather than a reduction in total labour inputs.



I don't follow. If you extend the expected life of anything capital investment out to infinity, the initial outlay is always irrelevant. But the things do not last forever, coal station, nuke station, or fancy RE station. I also don't see how you came to the conclusion that if you factor in labor costs of RE vs coal 'they are pretty clear winners'. No they are not. The labour required to build them must be factored in if the debate is 'which energy source is more efficient as a whole'.
If the costs of building and operating RE stations vs power output was lower than coal stations, we would have few coal stations. We have many coal stations. Hence, coal is cheaper.

Regarding the desire for immediate return and profit, this is the only workable system. Humans have finite lives. Hence we require returns on our investments sooner rather than later. We also require those returns to be high. A station with 0% ROE is useless, since this investment could have gone into something with a positive return. No one would do this. 
You are talking about central planning - when the government takes peoples money and invests it for them, without concern for profit. This is proven to result in economic hell (USSR, NKorea, GDR, East Europe, China vs Hong Kong/Singapore/Macau/Taiwan etc etc), since finite resources require a profit motive to be efficiently allocated where they are needed the most.


----------



## wayneL

George Moonbat comes out in support of nuclear.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima/print


----------



## qldfrog

tothemax6 said:


> You are talking about central planning - when the government takes peoples money and invests it for them, without concern for profit. This is proven to result in economic hell (USSR, NKorea, GDR, East Europe, China vs Hong Kong/Singapore/Macau/Taiwan etc etc), since finite resources require a profit motive to be efficiently allocated where they are needed the most.



sorry but if singapore is NOT the central planning at his best, tell me why; I wish we had more central planning when stuck in traffic jam in Brisbane, believe me...This is not a black and white case, and this applies to alternative vs coal; remember the billions of subsidies going to mining here (fuel excise, etc); this might explain the US vs aus cost differences.......


----------



## tothemax6

qldfrog said:


> sorry but if singapore is NOT the central planning at his best, tell me why; I wish we had more central planning when stuck in traffic jam in Brisbane, believe me...This is not a black and white case, and this applies to alternative vs coal; remember the billions of subsidies going to mining here (fuel excise, etc); this might explain the US vs aus cost differences.......



Central planning is the economic system where ownership of property is centralized in the hands of the state, which then controls the allocation of resources. You are perhaps confusing this with 'planning a city'. Singapore is highly free market. And yes, I f*cking HATE traffic jams. 

And yes, there should be no subsidies for anything.


----------



## DB008

Good article in Bloomberg Businessweek 
*
The Prospect for Safe Nuclear Power*



> Fukushima has cast a pall over the industry, just as new designs are showing promise of making reactors far safer. Will fear bring progress to a halt””or stimulate demand for smarter solutions?




More here....
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_14/b4222070137297.htm


----------



## Smurf1976

tothemax6 said:


> I don't follow. If you extend the expected life of anything capital investment out to infinity, the initial outlay is always irrelevant. But the things do not last forever, coal station, nuke station, or fancy RE station. I also don't see how you came to the conclusion that if you factor in labor costs of RE vs coal 'they are pretty clear winners'. No they are not. The labour required to build them must be factored in if the debate is 'which energy source is more efficient as a whole'.
> If the costs of building and operating RE stations vs power output was lower than coal stations, we would have few coal stations. We have many coal stations. Hence, coal is cheaper.
> 
> Regarding the desire for immediate return and profit, this is the only workable system.



Agreed that coal is cheaper, but only because of the desire for immediate return and profit (reflected as interest on loans etc).

Here's an example. Spend 30,000 man years of labour and get power for 90 years with virtually no ongoing input. Or spend 1,000 years of labour each and every year, a grand total of 90,000 man years of labour to produce the same power. They are the actual figures for a particular hydro scheme versus gas / coal.

In practice we do the latter, we use 90,000 man years of labour, only because the alternative option involves spending virtually the whole lot up front and "interest" then becomes a real killer.

We are not using the lowest labour input sources of energy today. We are using those which are "cheapest" once the interest is factored in. One fundamental characteristic of virtually all non-fossil fuel energy systems is that they have huge up front costs and very low ongoing costs. Take out the interest and they are already a clear winner in terms of labour hours worked etc.

This is the reason why, in the Australian context, Tas and Vic historically dominated the cheap power game. They built capital-intensive hydro and brown coal power schemes which cost basically nothing to run once built. It's no secret that Hydro Tas has ongoing costs around 0.2 cents per kWh generated and that it's even lower for some of the big brown coal stations in Vic. That contrasts with the roughly 4c value of bulk wholesale electricity, and the more than 20c you are paying at home.

Give me 0% financing and I'll give you renewable energy no worries. Charge me 20% on the loans and even coal becomes an outright dud and we're better off burning expensive gas or even diesel.

If the electricity industry in this country was starting from scratch then there would be no brown coal used in Vic and very little hydro in Tas since neither are viable under present accounting arrangements. Instead, we'd have far less heavy industry in both those states, and what power they do use would be supplied through transmission lines from NSW and local gas-fired generation.

And we'd never have built the Snowy scheme either under current accounting standards. Nor would we build any other renewable energy scheme. Black coal (which is cheaper to build but requires far higher lifetime labour than brown coal) and gas are all that stacks up under a system which favours high ongoing costs over high upfront costs.


----------



## madjohn

http://radiationprotection.in/uranium-explosion-in-nuclear-energy-demand-coming/


----------



## Gringotts Bank

Solar thermal featuring big time in Gillard's address to the Labor Conference in Bris.

I told you guys throughout this thread, giving reasons why: Solar thermal is the future.

44 MW solar boost project at Kogan Ck.

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1454


----------



## tothemax6

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed that coal is cheaper, but only because of the desire for immediate return and profit (reflected as interest on loans etc).
> 
> Here's an example. Spend 30,000 man years of labour and get power for 90 years with virtually no ongoing input. Or spend 1,000 years of labour each and every year, a grand total of 90,000 man years of labour to produce the same power. They are the actual figures for a particular hydro scheme versus gas / coal.
> 
> In practice we do the latter, we use 90,000 man years of labour, only because the alternative option involves spending virtually the whole lot up front and "interest" then becomes a real killer.
> 
> We are not using the lowest labour input sources of energy today. We are using those which are "cheapest" once the interest is factored in. One fundamental characteristic of virtually all non-fossil fuel energy systems is that they have huge up front costs and very low ongoing costs. Take out the interest and they are already a clear winner in terms of labour hours worked etc.
> 
> This is the reason why, in the Australian context, Tas and Vic historically dominated the cheap power game. They built capital-intensive hydro and brown coal power schemes which cost basically nothing to run once built. It's no secret that Hydro Tas has ongoing costs around 0.2 cents per kWh generated and that it's even lower for some of the big brown coal stations in Vic. That contrasts with the roughly 4c value of bulk wholesale electricity, and the more than 20c you are paying at home.
> 
> Give me 0% financing and I'll give you renewable energy no worries. Charge me 20% on the loans and even coal becomes an outright dud and we're better off burning expensive gas or even diesel.
> 
> If the electricity industry in this country was starting from scratch then there would be no brown coal used in Vic and very little hydro in Tas since neither are viable under present accounting arrangements. Instead, we'd have far less heavy industry in both those states, and what power they do use would be supplied through transmission lines from NSW and local gas-fired generation.
> 
> And we'd never have built the Snowy scheme either under current accounting standards. Nor would we build any other renewable energy scheme. Black coal (which is cheaper to build but requires far higher lifetime labour than brown coal) and gas are all that stacks up under a system which favours high ongoing costs over high upfront costs.



The time value of money is important. You seem to think it is some kind of trite inconvenience that needs to be circumvented. There is a reason why interest rates exist - because humans have finite lives. An asset now is worth more than an asset in the future because of this.
Any theorizing about 'if I could get 0% financing' is purely academic and not practically relevant. 0% financing only exists in a fantasy world where everyone lives forever, and projects can take as long as they want to complete.


----------



## skc

tothemax6 said:


> The time value of money is important. You seem to think it is some kind of trite inconvenience that needs to be circumvented. There is a reason why interest rates exist - because humans have finite lives. An asset now is worth more than an asset in the future because of this.
> Any theorizing about 'if I could get 0% financing' is purely academic and not practically relevant. 0% financing only exists in a fantasy world where everyone lives forever, and projects can take as long as they want to complete.




Time value of money exist not because human have finite lives. It exists because of the utility of money. Money today can be used straight away to satisfy a need. Money tomorrow cannot satisfy today needs. So money today has a higher value than money tomorrow. That difference in value is the interest rate (or the risk free rate anyway).


----------



## tothemax6

skc said:


> Time value of money exist not because human have finite lives. It exists because of the utility of money. Money today can be used straight away to satisfy a need. Money tomorrow cannot satisfy today needs. So money today has a higher value than money tomorrow. That difference in value is the interest rate (or the risk free rate anyway).



Perhaps that is like saying 'wheels don't roll because they are round, they roll because they are circular'. Infinite lives and the lack of requirements to satisfy 'current needs' are part of the same hypothetical situation. In a world where you literally have 'all the time in the world', when actions occur would not be important, and hence discounting would be unnecessary. As I said, given that this is not the case:


			
				tothemax said:
			
		

> An asset now is worth more than an asset in the future because of this.


----------



## skc

tothemax6 said:


> Perhaps that is like saying 'wheels don't roll because they are round, they roll because they are circular'. Infinite lives and the lack of requirements to satisfy 'current needs' are part of the same hypothetical situation. In a world where you literally have 'all the time in the world', when actions occur would not be important, and hence discounting would be unnecessary. As I said, given that this is not the case:




Infinite lives doesn't mean that I don't want my needs satisfied today. Put another way, I value having my needs satisfied today higher than having it satisfied next year, not because I have a finite live, but because I want that (ice-cream / big screen TV / beer / women / holiday / new house / Ferrari) now.



> The basic idea of time value of money is that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. This can be shown in many ways, many people find it easiest to understand if they think in terms of something they already know: food. For example having the money today allows you to buy some food immediately. Alternatively you may be willing to forgo current consumption and wait until later to purchase your food. Thus you could lend your "food money" to another with the promise of being paid back at some future time. Since you are passing up food today you would demand a return sufficient to allow you to buy at least as much food in the future that you are giving up now.



http://www.financeprofessor.com/financenotes/timevalueofmoney.htm

Life being finite has nothing to do with anything... although you just reminded me that life is finite and I shouldn't really waste too much time correcting forum posters on what is the underlying derivation of time value of money.


----------



## Smurf1976

tothemax6 said:


> The time value of money is important. You seem to think it is some kind of trite inconvenience that needs to be circumvented. There is a reason why interest rates exist - because humans have finite lives.



A fair point, but try to explain this one (real example that's relevant to the uranium topic).

Electric utility builds a plant in 1950 costing 7 million Pounds. It has a 90 year design life. Loans were taken out to finance it, and will be paid back with interest over the life of the plant.

All good so far, that's how it worked through most of the 20th Century and there seemed no reason not to continue.

Then some bright economist came along and said, no, wait a minute. In addition to paying back the loans and the costs of operating the plant, we have to add another cost to maintain the capital value of the plant "on paper".

That is, the plant may well have cost 7 million Pounds, but we need to charge for the fact that it is slowly wearing out, and we need to use today's cost of construction (about $300 million) as the basis for doing that.

Now, can anyone tell me why this is really necessary? Why not just borrow $300 million (or whatever it costs at the time) when the time comes to replace it and pay that back with interest as was done the first time around? What, exactly, is wrong with that approach? We started with nothing and borrowed the lot, so where does this need to maintain capital value arise from? Whose money is being maintained? Banks financed it and their money is already being repaid with interest. What else is there to fund??? Why not just leave a future generation to borrow, rebuild and then repay as was done this time?

It is that change of approach which made renewable energy unviable in this country and which has caused virtually all of our infrastructure problems. Previous generations borrowed to build things, then started gradually repaying the loans (with interest), knowing that they would be passing both a physical asset and a financial debt to the next generation.

At some point we collectively decided to stop doing that. No more long term loans to fund things of long term value. Hence we can no longer effectively fund things like bridges, railways, dams and so on. Hence the transport mess, water shortages and the like. Everything now is about the short term - all those "quick fix" solutions that don't really make a lot of sense in the long term.

What, exactly, is wrong with borrowing and building today, then paying back the loans over the life of the asset? It used to work quite nicely, and that we are reluctant to do it today is one of the major things standing in the way of renewables (incidentally, it also stands in the way of nuclear power for the same reasons - it is capital intensive compared to gas).


----------



## noirua

Some countries have good reason to smile as the likes of Germany pull out of the nuclear option. The price of uranium has reversed and instead of going headlong towards $100 per lb it is heading back to $50, great stuff they're thinking.

Bad news for those expensive producing uranium miners as mines must be mothballed.


----------

