Carbon Tax

[gumpy]

It would be reasonable to assume that the cost of thorium will be broadly similar to nuclear. Most of the cost for uranium nuclear is due to capital, fuel is a minor part of the cost. Thorium fuel might cost a bit more to produce just because it might be more difficult to extract from mineral sands. That's why I would guess at the high end of the range for nuclear power.



It is hard to see thorium as being better, the main benefit is PR related and that is only a minor advantage. the sustainability of the nuclear reaction is not a major advantage. There are uranium technologies that are technically similar - e.g. pebble bed reactors.



The waste still contains fission products, so we are still talking hundreds of years of storage. Still a significant problem. Most of the activity is because of the fission products in both wastes. So there is a significant decrease in uranium reactor waste over the same time period. Basically the same problems.

As for areas being uninhabitable. The only area that has been evacuated is around chernobyl. It has since been recognised that this evacuation was a mistake. Even something on that scale did not make a significant area uninhabitable. Chernobyl was a catastrophic failure of the containment due to a very poor design. We only need to look at Fukashima to see the difference that a good design provides. Partial meltdown and the containment remained intact, minimal emission of radioactive material.

As for the public, they refuse to live next to a radiation sterilisation plant, which is a triviality by comparison. You'll have the same battle to whether it is uranium nuclear or thorium nuclear. It is word nuclear that is the problem. Call it whatever you want the nimbys and bananas will say "highly dangerous nuclear"



Umm, radiation safety is not dependant on technology.

Ok we're coming a lot closer with our points of view which is quite rare but this is a start.

Honestly though wouldn't you say that having a reactor that produces more efficiently, with has a significantly lower level of operating pressures which lowers the chance of explosions is a good thing? It might be a bit harder to mine but the fact that it doesn't need to be enriched I'd say offsets that cost, not sure by how much but yeah.

I don't know about others but for me the fact that it can't sustain a nuclear reaction is key. I'd like other peoples opinion on this.

I also see Fukashima as a good example. That old reactor was not suppose to take that much punishment yet it survived very very well. Building on that know how and putting it in a lower stress reactor for me is fantastic.

As for the evacuation being overkill... that's news to me but seeing you work in that area I'll take that as fact. In saying that there's no way i'd allow my children in that area, I suspect you'd be the same with your children/grand children.

Well it's a good thing you're not backing one type of nuclear technology then.

 

[Dyslexic traveler]

My head hurts

 

[medhead]

[h=2]Advantages and Disadvantages in Using Thorium-233 and Uranium-235 as Nuclear Energy Fuels.[/h]

• Advantages of Thorium 233 over Uranium 235

1. Waste products can contain significantly less long-lived radioactive waste than uranium or plutonium.
2. Weapons cannot be proliferated from Thorium.
3. Thorium is more energy efficient, operating at higher temperatures.
4. There are massive supplies of Thorium worldwide.
5. Less environmental damage to the environment through mining, extraction, and processing.
6. Less damaging health effects to workers during extraction.
7. Many valuable metals can be extracted as by-products during the processing of Thorium, as well as medical applications.
8. Thorium does not require enrichment.

• Disadvantages of Thorium 233 over Uranium 235

1. Thorium is non-fissile on its own; it needs a kick-start from Uranium 235, to start a chain reaction, raising the radioactivity of the waste.
2. Although thorium produces much less long lived transuranics; some long life actinides are produced.
3. Research and development of thorium has been slow and underfunded owing to the difficulty to form it into nuclear weapons.
4. It would be difficult to convert existing uranium fuelled plants to thorium use.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/2/

Not major advantages there:

Advantage 1: already addressed - fission products are the main problem and still require significant time to decay.
Ad2: see disadvantage 1 proliferation is possible from the highly enriched U required to start the process. It is also possible from the U-233 produced in the reactor
Ad3: 3 times as much
Ad4: have you seen how they mine mineral sand? It is not less damaging
Ad5: Not true, having worked in both uranium and mineral sand mines. For a start mineral sand ore is about 95% silica, that stuff can be as bad as asbestos.
Ad6: they already produce this, more likely that thorium would be the byproduct
Ad7: se disadvantage 1.

Yes it's going to take awhile to develop but don't you agree all signs say that Thorium once available will be a much better alternative to Uranium?

Yes, but while they are developing it, power plants are shutting. Something is needed now and then something is needed later.

I totally disagree with "much better". It is marginally better and not being ready now is a big disadvantage.

 

[gumpy]

My head hurts

as does mine.

We're not going to solve the world's problem here but the thing is the Carbon Tax annoys me. I'd be much happier if they'd just start building reactors... preferably Thorium... Preferably in the US, China, India, Brazil etc where i'd make a material difference... but such is life

 

[medhead]

As for the evacuation being overkill... that's news to me but seeing you work in that area I'll take that as fact. In saying that there's no way i'd allow my children in that area, I suspect you'd be the same with your children/grand children.

It has been widely recognised that the evacuation created much greater mental problems than the risk of the radiation. This is acknowledged in a few of the recent recommendations and guidance from the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Although, that is a bit of a moving target across various publications from them. the general consensus remains

 

[connieguy]

...I'd be much happier if they'd just start building reactors... preferably Thorium... Preferably in the US, China, India, Brazil etc where i'd make a material difference...

A Tonne of CO2 eliminated is a tonne of CO2 eliminated. Matter not where it is done. Building Nukes here in Oz will also eliminate any CO2 emissions associated with the transport of the fuel as well. Additionally we can then store the spent fuel here in Oz for as long as it takes. I mean our miners did dig it up and enjoyed the profit in doing that. Sounds very doable, engineering wise. Wonder why Abbott is not pushing this line?

I have no problem living say 5 km away from a wind / solar / gas plant. How close will you live to a Nuke plant? Be honest. How close will you live with your family, kids and friends to a Nuke plant?

I mean lets build a Nuke plant right next to the Desal plant in every capital city. According to the nuclear industry, they are safe. Right? So why worry where we build them? If you do worry, well then just maybe you need to rethink.

I suspect the truth is that not one of you would live, with your family and friends next to a Nuke plant, yet you talk as if this is OK for someone else to do it, just not you and your family.

Maybe tell these people not to fear Nukes:
Atomic retreat fuels Japan power fears - FT.com

The bottom line is there will be more Nuke accidents. The only unknown is when, where and how bad.

 

[drron]

A Tonne of CO2 eliminated is a tonne of CO2 eliminated. Matter not where it is done. Building Nukes here in Oz will also eliminate any CO2 emissions associated with the transport of the fuel as well. Additionally we can then store the spent fuel here in Oz for as long as it takes. I mean our miners did dig it up and enjoyed the profit in doing that. Sounds very doable, engineering wise. Wonder why Abbott is not pushing this line?

I have no problem living say 5 km away from a wind / solar / gas plant. How close will you live to a Nuke plant? Be honest. How close will you live with your family, kids and friends to a Nuke plant?

I mean lets build a Nuke plant right next to the Desal plant in every capital city. According to the nuclear industry, they are safe. Right? So why worry where we build them? If you do worry, well then just maybe you need to rethink.

I suspect the truth is that not one of you would live, with your family and friends next to a Nuke plant, yet you talk as if this is OK for someone else to do it, just not you and your family.

Maybe tell these people not to fear Nukes:
Atomic retreat fuels Japan power fears - FT.com

The bottom line is there will be more Nuke accidents. The only unknown is when, where and how bad.

So tell me how many people have died as a result of-
3 Mile Island?
Chernobyl?
Fukishima?

Interested in your answers.
Your article quoted merely confirms peoples fears,not ongoing problems with Nuclear plants.

 

[oz_mark]

I wonder how many people realise that out of the top 500 polluters, 190 are waste disposal operations?

Expect any increased costs for your local council, sewage processing etc to be just passed along.

 

[docjames]

I wonder how many people realise that out of the top 500 polluters, 190 are waste disposal operations?

Expect any increased costs for your local council, sewage processing etc to be just passed along.

Has the government even published a list? Or are you using another source for this list?

 

[connieguy]

So tell me how many people have died as a result of-
3 Mile Island?
Chernobyl?
Fukishima?

Interested in your answers.
Your article quoted merely confirms peoples fears,not ongoing problems with Nuclear plants.

My question was much simpler:

Are you, your wife and children, wider family and friends happy to live 5 km away from a Nuke plant?

Yes or No?

 

[oz_mark]

Has the government even published a list? Or are you using another source for this list?

Government published information:

Of the 500 businesses:

• around 60 are primarily involved in electricity generation
• around 100 are primarily involved in coal or other mining
• around 40 are natural gas retailers
• around 60 are primarily involved in industrial processes (cement, chemicals and metal processing)
• around 50 operate in a range of other fossil fuel intensive sectors; and
• the remaining 190 operate in the waste disposal sector.

Clean Energy Future – 500 biggest polluting companies

 

[connieguy]

New poll:

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....-discussion/you-ok-you-your-family-31506.html

 

[medhead]

So tell me how many people have died as a result of-
3 Mile Island?
Chernobyl?
Fukishima?

Interested in your answers.
Your article quoted merely confirms peoples fears,not ongoing problems with Nuclear plants.

Good question and I've gone to the literature.

To date 51 chernobyl workers have died due to acute radiation syndrome or being caught by the initial explosion.

No member of the public (those living around nuclear plants) have incurred a dose high enough to get acute radiation syndrome. Radiation induced cancers cannot be reliably distinguished from other cancers but we have the following estimates of cancers induced in the public by exposure to radiation from accidents. (I'll add another accident)

• Windscale estimated 200 excess cancers mostly thyroid
• 3 mile island less than 1 case of thyroid cancer
• Chernobyl estimate 4000 excess thyroid cancers but several hundred individual cases are more likely to have been caused by radiation from Chernobyl than from any other cause
• fukashima too early to say but the dose to the public was very low. Administration of iodine was commenced immediately instead of after about a week at Chernobyl, so the risk of thyroid cancer is greatly reduced.

It is impossible to say any member of the public has died due to these accidents.

As for fear mongering. I received a flyer for a talk on fukashima from the Greens this week. It has a great picture of a burning oil refinery.

 

[connieguy]

...It is impossible to say any member of the public has died due to these accidents...

Ok but would you and your family live with-in 5 kms of a Nuclear power plant?

As engineers we do know it is only a matter of time until Murphy finds a weakness and we have the next accident. The only thing we do not know is when, where and how bad.

 

[medhead]

Ok but would you and your family live with-in 5 kms of a Nuclear power plant?

if Australia ever built one I would be trying to get a job at it.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

Ok but would you and your family live with-in 5 kms of a Nuclear power plant?

As engineers we do know it is only a matter of time until Murphy finds a weakness and we have the next accident. The only thing we do not know is when, where and how bad.

Sure. But accidents can happen at all types of power plants. However they appear to be fairly rare, and it seems that nuclear plants are built with safeguards that may not be present at coal and gas plants.

 

[connieguy]

Sure. But accidents can happen at all types of power plants. However they appear to be fairly rare, and it seems that nuclear plants are built with safeguards that may not be present at coal and gas plants.

The issue is a bit of coal dust or gas or thermal discharge will not cause other issues. With Nuclear plants, release of even a very small amount of radioactive material has been seen to cause problems a long way away and for years.

As I said if they are so safe, why is Tony not selling their wide spread use in Australia as his Green solution and additionally to show how Australia can earn lots of money by storing spent fuel rods and other low, intermittent and high level radioactive material from all over the world?

 

[medhead]

The issue is a bit of coal dust or gas or thermal discharge will not cause other issues. With Nuclear plants, release of even a very small amount of radioactive material has been seen to cause problems a long way away and for years.

A bi of coal dust? It's full of radioactive uranium and thorium for a start. Then there are lung diseases that are caused by coal dust. Then there are the 4000 people who died prematurely in the great London smog of 1952, due to pollution from burning coal.

As for you comment about a small amount of radioactive material causing problems a long way away for years. Where, when and what problems?

As I said if they are so safe, why is Tony not selling their wide spread use in Australia as his Green solution and additionally to show how Australia can earn lots of money by storing spent fuel rods and other low, intermittent and high level radioactive material from all over the world?

Because Tony is dancing to the tune of the greens on nuclear power. He lacks political courage on the matter. his position has nothing to do with safety.

 

[drron]

And Medhead is very nearly right.There have been 15 deaths from Thyroid cancer in those living around Chernobyl at the time of the accident.
Yet compare that to wind farms-
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

Yes 83 known deaths associated with wind farm accidents until 30/6/2011.25 were not wind farm workers.Yes and this is only since 1990.Nuclear plants have been around a lot longer.

And as medhead has continually said-check how many die in coal mine accidents.

In 2006 the decontamination workers at Chernobyl were assessed.Over 600000 of them.Total deaths from all causes ~5750.less than 1 in 10000.In fact a little lower than the Ukraine average.
Then there is also the evidence for Hiroshima.The Peace Centre there says that 62,218 survivors died between the end of 1945 and the end of 1997 out of 260000 alive at the end of 1945.Sounds awful until you see a death rate per year of ~ 0.5% which is lower than for the general Japanese population.
So gowatson you can use all the fear mongering you like but the measured figures do not support you.Of course you can say the measurements can be wrong-though not of course if done by a Climate scientist.

 

[Smackbum]

Re: Carbon Tax - or are we now talking about something else

All power generation methods have problems with being located in densely populated areas, whilst at the same time you don't want them too far away because of the transmission losses. Whether they be coal or nuclear or hydro or wind or solar or whatever, they will not be dumped into the middle of our cities but will be somewhere just over the horizon. I have no particular problem with that no matter what the type, but I don't think the Carbon Tax is directed at the nuclear industry so this discussion is moot.

The intention is to put a cost on certain types of industry to tilt the balance in favour of less pollutiing alternatives. At $23 per tonne it is not going to send anyone to the wall (unless they were heading that way already), and if you think it will cause China to tear up all their contracts to buy Australian raw materials then you are on a different planet. It will in fact be nice to see a little more value being retained locally, rather than going into the pockets of multinationals and local/foreign shareholders.

In fact I will even be happy when the Mad Monk gets this revenue after the next election, and doubt he will be giving it back.