#Official Energy Thread

[Howie]

One could say go nuclear ... hmm.

[Cruise]

One could say go nuclear ... hmm.

According to mike rann no one wants it.

[Howie]

Both Libs and Labor haven't ruled it out yet, as demonstrated by not passing a bill banning the enrichment of uranium for power generation in the state.

[Brando]

Both Libs and Labor haven't ruled it out yet, as demonstrated by not passing a bill banning the enrichment of uranium for power generation in the state.

I thought Rudd was opposed to it?

[Howie]

You can oppose it in principle but leave the option there.. which is what they've rightly done in SA, unlike other states which have passed legislation to prevent a local nuclear industry.

Unless we discover a new way of generating base load power cleanly, the labor government may be left with no other option. I'm sure Rudd realises that, when and if the time is right they'll announce a local nuclear power industry.

[Bulldozer]

Both Libs and Labor haven't ruled it out yet, as demonstrated by not passing a bill banning the enrichment of uranium for power generation in the state.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who noticed that the other day. The hypocrisy of Rann on the nuclear fuel cycle is disgusting beyond belief.

[Howie]

Unfortunately the cold war/post WWII stigma around nuclear power still exists today, Rann's just doing what other pollies do best, and that is to play a populist role to satisfy his misinformed constituents. It's a small vocal minority in SA that prevent the nuclear industry from getting off the ground, a perfect example is the piss-poor effort by some so called environmentalists in Rundle Mall handing out 'free maps' showing what would happen if an atomic bomb was detonated in the heart of the cbd. Apparently this is what will happen if we start enriching uranium They're the kind of people Rann is up against.

[AG]

Part of the problem with a lot of the opposition to nuclear power is that a lot of the opinion is based on belief rather than the cold hard facts. Uranium is quite safe when handled with the proper safety procedures, something that well and truly exists in Australia.

[skyliner]

I agree with the idea of nuclear power in SA. With only brown ('dirty') coal, and having to import the rest (also quite 'dirty). nuclear offers the only large and reliable power source. SA has a golden opportunity with uranium in it's backyard. (world's biggect uranium mine). BTW - I have information from a civil engineer who works with the QLD coal mines who says that 'clean' coal does not and will not exist. The closest is anthracite.

The opposers of nuclear energy seem to be greenies and misinformed people basing their ideas (as said) on stigmas from the cold war era or Chernoble. It's odd how some nations, led by very intelligent leaders, have used this option - and effectively. I have asked qualified geologists about dealing with waste, all have said it's public hype concerning the dangers. Strange that! Intelligent people too!

Over time, when more realise the real advantages and the options that effectively exist, I believe the nuclear case will improve.SA should be ready. It's got a 'goldmine' for a backyard. (as indicated by the $25bn investment presented on this thread).

I would suggest go nuclear desalination for a start. Now there's one that would upset a few!

[urban]

Part of the problem with a lot of the opposition to nuclear power is that a lot of the opinion is based on belief rather than the cold hard facts. Uranium is quite safe when handled with the proper safety procedures, something that well and truly exists in Australia.

The problem with uranium is that it remains dangerous for thousands of years. When people calculate the cost of creating energy from uranium they never factor in the cost of storing it safely for thousands of years. Recent studies have also shown that the levels of exposure to radiation generally considered safe are not actually safe. The record of industries telling the truth about the dangers of their products is woeful. Just think asbestos, tobacco and coal.

Yes uranium needs to be explored as an option but do not take lightly the potential drawbacks. We should be aiming as high as China:

10% of electricity from renewables by 2010
20% of electricity from renewables by 2020
100% of electricity from renewables by 2060

[AG]

The problem with uranium is that it remains dangerous for thousands of years. When people calculate the cost of creating energy from uranium they never factor in the cost of storing it safely for thousands of years. Recent studies have also shown that the levels of exposure to radiation generally considered safe are not actually safe. The record of industries telling the truth about the dangers of their products is woeful. Just think asbestos, tobacco and coal.

Question though is how do you measure the costs involved in safely storing uranium waste beyond the simple stuff such as transporting it? (I presume you meant storing waste for thousands of years and not yellowcake)

[Cruise]

The problem with uranium is that it remains dangerous for thousands of years. When people calculate the cost of creating energy from uranium they never factor in the cost of storing it safely for thousands of years. Recent studies have also shown that the levels of exposure to radiation generally considered safe are not actually safe. The record of industries telling the truth about the dangers of their products is woeful. Just think asbestos, tobacco and coal.

I think you can add fibreglass to that list also.

[stelaras]

The problem with uranium is that it remains dangerous for thousands of years. When people calculate the cost of creating energy from uranium they never factor in the cost of storing it safely for thousands of years. Recent studies have also shown that the levels of exposure to radiation generally considered safe are not actually safe. The record of industries telling the truth about the dangers of their products is woeful. Just think asbestos, tobacco and coal.

Lets just consider a few things.

Its true that it remains "dangerous" for thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of years (244 thousand years talking about Uranium 235) much much more for other types. However, Australia is geologically neutral, that is it is a large island in the middle of a continent and is unique in that it does not suffer from major earthquakes.


The standards for building uranium containment chambers have to be rated for at least 1000 years, thus storing depleted uranium isnt that much of an issue.

This brings on my next point, the storage is of spent uranium rods means that the level of radiation is low in comparisson to pre-enriched sourches.

Thats not to say that you cant get sick if you came in contact with it, however when you think about how much radiation you are ingesting on a daily basis you would be very surprised.

Built properly, storing spent rods can be very very safe as long as the earth that it is put in is free from major earthquakes.

Your other point about radiation safety is mostly inaccurate. There is a dose of radiation that is deemed safe and this dose has been derived from very very good research. in fact its set at about 20 times less the amount that can actually cause you harm!...Just hink that the amount of radiation we ingest daily, if the medicos wernt telling the truth EVERYONE would have cancer!

Now i work in the medical field and have been in that field for the last 12 years...My radiation exposure is higher than your common individual, and im not talking about electromagnetic radiation, im talking about serious stuff such as tritiated thymidine and 35S. I go through mandatory tests every year and my thyroid tests are normal (gold standard test)

So, i wouldnt be alarmist/conspiratory about radiation. Dealt with properly it is very very safe!

[Bulldozer]

The problem with uranium is that it remains dangerous for thousands of years. When people calculate the cost of creating energy from uranium they never factor in the cost of storing it safely for thousands of years.

That's incorrect. Nuclear energy is the only form of power generation that has the full costs of everything factored into it. Every kWh you buy has a small portion of the money set aside in a trust fund to deal with decommissioning and waste handling. Spent fuel is not dangerous for thousands of years either - the longer the half-life, the less radioactivity. With reprocessing you can extract the 90% or so of the fuel that hasn't been used and shrink the volume of waste by about 10x, with the resultant waste being safe to handle after a few centuries.

The waste can be combined with pyrex glass or made into synroc then put in drums and buried in concrete a kilometre underground in the middle of the desert in our highly stable and ancient rock. The waste is solid, so if the drums break it's not going anywhere. Hell, we can mine the Uranium, process it into fuel, sell it overseas, take it back for reprocessing and then charge them to keep the waste here! Billions of dollars of income for SA!

Recent studies have also shown that the levels of exposure to radiation generally considered safe are not actually safe. The record of industries telling the truth about the dangers of their products is woeful. Just think asbestos, tobacco and coal.

On the contrary, the latest thoughts are that the Linear No Threshold model for determining the limits of safe exposure is incorrect. It is an extrapolation of findings from the aftermath of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is a positive correlation between parts of the world with elevated background radiation levels and lower incidences of cancer, while the aftermath of Chernobyl has found to be dramatically less than predicted.

That's not to discount the very real dangers of ionising radiation though, just that the latest evidence seems to suggest that you can be safely exposed to higher levels of it than has previously been thought according to the LNT model.

We should be aiming as high as China:

10% of electricity from renewables by 2010
20% of electricity from renewables by 2020
100% of electricity from renewables by 2060

And that's why they're building dozens of nuclear power plants!

If anything, we should strive to emulate France - 80% nuclear energy from 59 reactors. (I think the rest is hydro) They are really the only country that has got nuclear energy right - they don't take crap from protesters when it comes to building plants and they practice reprocessing.

[Howie]

On the contrary, the latest thoughts are that the Linear No Threshold model for determining the limits of safe exposure is incorrect. It is an extrapolation of findings from the aftermath of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is a positive correlation between parts of the world with elevated background radiation levels and lower incidences of cancer, while the aftermath of Chernobyl has found to be dramatically less than predicted.

That's right i've heard this, something about anything less than 5% and the threshold model's result are unpredictable? Which means low level radiation is perfectly safe for humans.