S
spooony
Guest
Don't forget about malware like Stuxnet that was designed to sabotage Irans nuclear plants and infected other plants around the world as well
http://www.symantec.com/content/en/..._response/whitepapers/w32_stuxnet_dossier.pdfCIA plot?
I don't pretend to know an awful lot about nuclear power but my understanding of the situation is:
Positives:
1. Low CO2 emissions;
2. We've got a shedload;
3. Baseload.
Negatives:
1. Despite 70 years of trying, no one knows how to dispose of the extraordinarily dangerous waste.
2. The conversion from nuclear power to nuclear weapons isn't a big enough jump (though I would hate to think Australia would ever be tempted to develop nuclear weapons).
3. Time lag to get these bad boys on line is 20 years meaning they're going to be too late to deal with our CO2 problem.
4. They need lots of water. It can't be fresh water because we don't have any to spare meaning it must be seawater. Given our coastline, there is a fair bit of NIMBYism (which I can perfectly well understand).
1. It is not CO2/emissions free. There are massive costs not only from mining and refining the ore to usable standard directly, the indirect costs come in the massive amounts of aluminium required to process the ore and the related energy inputs to create these components that then cannot be used for anything else. The energy inputs do not stop there, there is then processing of and then the maintenance of the waste. The Waste is highly corrosive both chemically and physically, (Chemically by oxidization of its containments and physically by displacement and conversion of the atomic structure of the containment.) Thus the waste must itself be continually maintained, and given the extraordinarily long half life of the majority of the waste the energy inputs are massive. For proof of this have a look at the continuing efforts being made to contain Chernobyl.
Check this post regarding waste. Waste is a small issue, which will grow smaller when gen IV breeder reactors come online (which they are already doing)2. There is currently no permanent storage facility for high level waste.
UNSCEAR, the frigging United Nations, says that about 50 deaths were due to radiation. Mostly preventable if they'd given children iodide tablets.3. Given the lead times for most cancers caused by the types o radio isotopes released from a Power Reactor it is a grossly misleading statement to say that nobody has been killed by the incident at Fukishima. and the fact same lies are still propagated by Nuclear supporters regarding Chernobyl despite the evidence of increases in many types of cancer in areas surrounding Chernobyl since that incident. It is also misleading given that a more telling measure of the impact of Nuclear accidents is the impact on the lives of the effected. More than 20 years since Chernobyl people still cannot live in the exclusion zone. Ask what the impact of the Fukishima incident is on the people of the areas no quarantined.
The total number of deaths in the OECD due to nuclear power in the past several decades is a number that is very very close to zero. Even hydro power has been more dangerous if you count fatalities. Here is world data (so including soveit russia) of deaths per terawatt hour. There has never been a severe accident in the OECD before Fukishima. Fukishima was a 1960s design on the point of retirement, that could not be licensed today.4. Accidents are common place though rarely publicised in power generation and the level of maintenance in the now privately run Power Stations is minimal and basically on a 'replace it when it breaks' basis. I have no faith at all that these people can run a Nuclear facility safely given the consequences of a failure.
How much land does a solar farm take up? Lots and lots and lots. For something that doesn't work when it's cloudy or dark.I often ask people a similar question regarding so called renewables, add up the inputs that go into the production of the units as Solar cells and wind turbines as they both contain highly carbon intensive components and you will find that the time to break even is very close to the service life of the unit, without taking into the significant input costs in maintenance for units like wind turbines.
Are you inferring that I'm a paid hack? I wish. But that's ad hominem. Your lines are the standard lines quoted by the anti-nuke crowd. So where does that leave us? In the realm of facts.Wilfull - those are the standard lines quoted by the Pro-Nuclear lobby.
Nuclear power is low emissions, full stop. Including all reasonably attributable energy expenses: http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf1. Nuclear is low emissions only when you consider the actual operations emissions. Consider as I proposed the full input emissions from mining, processing, reprocessing and finally storage and maintenance of the waste.
Waste really is a very trivial issue compared to many industrial processes. The biggest issue is fear. Gen IV plants do dispose of wastes, and will leave very small amounts of wastes with half lives of decades only. With 100 years they will be less radioactive than the ores they're mined from.2. Waste is not an issue. I am so glad that you believe that to be the case. GenIV reactors do not dispose of the waste indeed significant amounts will still remain with the same health and environmental issues and continuing energy input requirements.
Not less than 200, more like 50. As stated clearly and unequivocally by the United Nations. I know I'm arguing from authority here, but until an internationally respected epidemiologist turns up, I think that the item I previously quoted is clearly the final word on the matter.3. The errors in the reporting of cancer related deaths are especially well known. There is also the fact of life impacts such the rate of continuing birth defects attributed to Chernobyl, displacement of people from their homes and so forth. Death rate directly attributable to the accident is always reportedly low. Are you one of those people who still assert that fewer than 200 people died as a result of Chernobyl. The effects of of this latest accident will be felt for many years to come.
If deaths isn't the most unarguable and bottom line measure then I don't know what is. Nuclear power not only doesn't result in deaths, it also doesn't result in QALYs. It's safe whatever way you want to cut it. Probably the biggest health cost is psychological, due to unreasoning fear. Not sure whether that should be directly attributed to the nuclear power industry or to its critics.4. You miss the point entirely and still rely on direct deaths. My point is that in conventional Generation in Oz with our stringent workplace safety laws, is subject to many "accidents" they often result in no injury to people but total failure of plant. The direct injury/death is a secondary point to the fact that there are multiple incidents every day in conventional generation with relatively common major failures.
If I missed the point it is because it was obscure.5. Again you miss the point entirely. Assess the actual Carbon inputs for each of the "alternatives" and then what the "saved" carbon will be from the lifetime power generation from that unit. If the equation comes back negative are you really saving Carbon? The amount of land taken up by solar is a whole different consideration.
Will they? not for the sort of nuclear power I advocate.Hey Wilful, you are very quick to post-facto explain why nuclear accidents shouldn't have happened. But they will, won't they?
I am an unfortunate shareholder in Geodynamics. For ten years now, they've had my dough and it hasn't gone anywhere. But i do still hold out hope.