Fukushima declared an emergency...

[b0son]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

how about biomass

CO2, may as well keep burning coal.

wave

Same as wind/solar - infrequent.

Hydro-electric

Geographic limitations.

deep sea currents

Geographic limitations.

geothermal

Geographic limitations.

with appropriate investment we have the solution

IOW, if we throw money at it, we might eventually make it viable but even then, there are major limitations on where it can be used.

If its simply a case of investment, why don't we make the investment in nuclear? Thorium comes to mind....

[b0son]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Possibly...But can anyone guarantee that over the next 100, 000 years or even the next 10,000 years or just the next 1000 years that our political, social and or geographical systems will remain stable?.

Thorium reactors have the potential to generate orders of magnitude less waste than uranium reactors. The waste decays in hundreds of years rather than tens of thousands.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by b0son

CO2, may as well keep burning coal.

Same as wind/solar - infrequent.

Geographic limitations.

Geographic limitations.

Geographic limitations.

IOW, if we throw money at it, we might eventually make it viable but even then, there are major limitations on where it can be used.

If its simply a case of investment, why don't we make the investment in nuclear? Thorium comes to mind....

Im going to say we shall agree to disagree

[b0son]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Im going to say we shall agree to disagree

disagreeing with what? i wasnt stating opinions, they are known disadvantages of each method.

why do the renewables proponents insist on burying their heads in the sand and pretending they dont exist?

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

Doesn't Australia already take other countries nuclear waste and bury it in a hole somewhere out in the sticks?

No...but we definitely should. It would be a bloody good little earner if we did. Geologically stable, politically stable, advanced western democracy, with vast areas of MAMBA ("Miles And Miles of Bugger All"...) in which to set up a very safe disposal area.

As for "who can guarantee what will happen over the next 100,000 or 10,000 or 1000 years"...come on...you could use that excuse to stop doing anything.

Australia has some of the worlds biggest reserves of uranium and, especially, thorium, which could make us totally energy self-sufficient if we had someone with the political willpower and the desire to look further than the next election...

[max_torq]

we need fusion.

we should have a fusion research project, and in the meantime, industrial scale solar plants.

nuclear is bad, abandoned deserted cities surrounded by 20km exclusion zones is not a desireable or affordable outcome.

[mac_man_luke]

Originally Posted by max_torq

nuclear is bad, abandoned deserted cities surrounded by 20km exclusion zones is not a desireable or affordable outcome.

We have plenty of land - dont build it near a city.

[mik]

An interesting article, hope it has not been put up before.
I picked out a couple of paragraphs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ater-leak.html

In Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it’s prepared to help. Besides radiated water, the site north of Tokyo has more than 73,000 cubic meters of contaminated concrete, 58,000 cubic meters of irradiated trees and undergrowth, and 157,710 gallons of toxic sludge, according to the utility.
The tanks holding highly radioactive water cover an area equal to 37 football fields, and the utility is clearing forest to make room for more. There are 480 filters clogged with cesium. Each weigh 15 tons(7200 tons in total ) and are warehoused in what the utility calls temporary storage, though it will take hundreds of years for the radiation to decay.

that is a lot of waste .... take note "in temporary storage", not counting the 300 tons figure(possibly rubbery figure) of contaminated water going into the ocean each day.

[mik]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

No...but we definitely should. It would be a bloody good little earner if we did. Geologically stable, politically stable, advanced western democracy, with vast areas of MAMBA ("Miles And Miles of Bugger All"...) in which to set up a very safe disposal area.

As for "who can guarantee what will happen over the next 100,000 or 10,000 or 1000 years"...come on...you could use that excuse to stop doing anything.

Australia has some of the worlds biggest reserves of uranium and, especially, thorium, which could make us totally energy self-sufficient if we had someone with the political willpower and the desire to look further than the next election...

AAhhh it's about the money ............... bugger the money............... why take the dirty alternative when there are cleaner safer proven methods of generating power .....

[max_torq]

Originally Posted by mac_man_luke

We have plenty of land - dont build it near a city.

Nuclear power plants need water and lots of it. Basically two thirds of heat generated by a nuclear plant needs to be exhausted as waste heat, this is done using steam. So they need to be built near major rivers and lakes, just like cities. When theres a big drought, well you can't take water from the nuclear plant.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by max_torq

Nuclear power plants need water and lots of it.

It can be recycled.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by b0son

why do the renewables proponents insist on burying their heads in the sand and pretending they dont exist?

For the same reason the other guys deliberately or ignorantly ignore the complete statements made that address the common misconceptions.
Sometimes its not worth repeating ones self when obvious Bias is shown.
Im not going to change your mind. I believe what I say, I base that on having worked with the industries I comment about, I have undertaken enough peer reviewed research to believe what I know. On an internet forum I do not have the same confidence in my opponents in a discussion so I choose to agree to disagree. I believe declare what you said is opinion not fact as I believe it is wrong!

Justin

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

As for "who can guarantee what will happen over the next 100,000 or 10,000 or 1000 years"...come on...you could use that excuse to stop doing anything.

But that's my point, cheap electricity for you today means many generations to come have to pay for it, to ensure its safety, security and containment. we cant know what the future will hold, but if we choose nuclear, we guarantee someone must deal with our waste for along time. If we choose a renewable future we don't leave a dangerous, poisonous legacy effectively forever.

Justin

[mik]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

But that's my point, cheap electricity for you today means many generations to come have to pay for it, to ensure its safety, security and containment. we cant know what the future will hold, but if we choose nuclear, we guarantee someone must deal with our waste for along time. If we choose a renewable future we don't leave a dangerous, poisonous legacy effectively forever.

Justin

And i'm all for that , as long as we don't have to pay a stupid carbon tax or stupid emission trading scheme to another country to do it.

[mac_man_luke]

Originally Posted by max_torq

Nuclear power plants need water and lots of it. Basically two thirds of heat generated by a nuclear plant needs to be exhausted as waste heat, this is done using steam. So they need to be built near major rivers and lakes, just like cities. When theres a big drought, well you can't take water from the nuclear plant.

Plenty of empty coastline

[b0son]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

I believe declare what you said is opinion not fact as I believe it is wrong!

Then I am at a loss. Most of the examples you gave have fundamental geographical limitations - you seem to be arguing that they dont exist.

I can only then assume your qualifications/experiences are the realm of fiction, the same realm where one can presumably have a hydroelectric plant that doesnt actually rely on vast quantities of water....

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by b0son

Then I am at a loss. Most of the examples you gave have fundamental geographical limitations - you seem to be arguing that they dont exist.

I can only then assume your qualifications/experiences are the realm of fiction, the same realm where one can presumably have a hydroelectric plant that doesnt actually rely on vast quantities of water....

Off shore wind has a proven 0.05 percent non production time which equates to similar or less than a traditional fossil fueled power station. and as the wind blows significantly more consistantly out to sea I dont believe there is a geographic limitation here

Hydro works well where it is available Obviously where there is possible large bodies of water, But i never stated a reliance on one production method. Biomass, while I agree produces C02 it does so at a far less rate that coal, as the carbon is re-sequestered into the new growth fuel and can be located in your village, town or city, a great opportunity for localised decentralised power production. Sea bed currents operate 100 percent of the day around every coast line globally and current first generation generators are proving sucessfull. Sun shines everyday almost everywhere, enough to generate electricity at the industrial scale, given appropriate scale of facility, I agree that storage is an issue, but one that can be overcome and the infamouse 'base load' is predominately a day time requirement, and evening/night generation can come from one of the other methods.. Geothermal is one of Australias better opportunities to Augment the other Renewables with amongst the worlds best non volcanic 'hot rocks', as an example the SA and QLD Cooper and Eromanga basins have heat of 250 degrees Celcius ready to be tapped.(interestingly given how this started as a result of radiation decay) An the electricity generated can be transmitted via power lines!

Much of my day job as a designer is spent sitting with teams of engineers, political lobbyists, ethicists, manufacturers and others in a 'think tank' capacity helping realise alternate technologies, proven technologies utilsed in alternate ways and integration of these into the existing context. Have done this for 15 years 6 of which spent in Europe, coupled with 3 degrees in design and business, amassing design projects with a career total spend of near 5 billion dollars makes me qualified to have an opinion...
Justin

[b0son]

And there's the rub. Mutiple investments in mutliple technologies. Duplication of effort, duplication of spending, to overcome the limitations of each method.

Why not simply invest in one method - nuclear? I dont think you can have effective debate on energy production while you pretend one major method simply isnt an option.

[mik]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Off shore wind has a proven 0.05 percent non production time which equates to similar or less than a traditional fossil fueled power station. and as the wind blows significantly more consistantly out to sea I dont believe there is a geographic limitation here

Hydro works well where it is available Obviously where there is possible large bodies of water, But i never stated a reliance on one production method. Biomass, while I agree produces C02 it does so at a far less rate that coal, as the carbon is re-sequestered into the new growth fuel and can be located in your village, town or city, a great opportunity for localised decentralised power production. Sea bed currents operate 100 percent of the day around every coast line globally and current first generation generators are proving sucessfull. Sun shines everyday almost everywhere, enough to generate electricity at the industrial scale, given appropriate scale of facility, I agree that storage is an issue, but one that can be overcome and the infamouse 'base load' is predominately a day time requirement, and evening/night generation can come from one of the other methods.. Geothermal is one of Australias better opportunities to Augment the other Renewables with amongst the worlds best non volcanic 'hot rocks', as an example the SA and QLD Cooper and Eromanga basins have heat of 250 degrees Celcius ready to be tapped.(interestingly given how this started as a result of radiation decay) An the electricity generated can be transmitted via power lines!

Much of my day job as a designer is spent sitting with teams of engineers, political lobbyists, ethicists, manufacturers and others in a 'think tank' capacity helping realise alternate technologies, proven technologies utilsed in alternate ways and integration of these into the existing context. Have done this for 15 years 6 of which spent in Europe, coupled with 3 degrees in design and business, amassing design projects with a career total spend of near 5 billion dollars makes me qualified to have an opinion...
Justin

not forgetting molten salt for heat/power storage over night, we have oodles of salt ..

[Trump]

The way I see it, is that unless there is a monumental breakthrough in room temperature nuclear fusion, the future of power generation is not a baseload one, but a micro generation one. This is despite the obvious benefits of thorium reactors over traditional fission reactors. There is a massive amount of inertia to overcome in the bureaucracies around the world for them to even consider thorium and other safer fission technologies.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by b0son

And there's the rub...
Why not simply invest in one method - nuclear? I dont think you can have effective debate on energy production while you pretend one major method simply isnt an option.

But that Nuclear being an option is the crux of the argument. Given Nuclear power generations own 'limitations', cost and geographic limitations is Nuclear a real option as a single energy provider.

As I have mentioned Fukishima has proven me one thing. When Nuclear goes bad its still better than when coal goes right. But the issues that need to be overcome, I have raised previously plus these, uranium enrichment for weapons (you wont see a wind turbine killing many people even if thrown at them) and many countries that we consider unstable, or unfriendly have the right and desire to enter the nuclear age, Energy security, as the Nuclear industry is quite closed and its technology owners are multi-national or other country owned.

Fuel supply is an issue for energy security, to date 13 countries have depleted their Uranium deposits...Some sources indicate we have already hit peak uranium, sometime back in the 80's well before peak oil was reached, based on a single use scenario, yet other sources indicate hundreds of years of availability, hardly encouraging for cost certainty and security of a scarce resource. But the reprocessing to date has proven inconsistantly cost viable. thus scientists are looking at seawater reclamation which only has .003 parts per million, whereas high grade ores have 200,000 parts per million of fissible material. The fact research is underway suggests a growing knowledge about need for alternate sources. The current issue is the energy required for low grade ore to be enriched is greater than what it yeilds. Of the tonnes of uranium only .7 percent of is fissible and at current costs can only be considered viable for extraction from High quality ores, further limiting fuel source. Extraction from lower grades sends the price skyrocketing at present, well above the cost of a renewable investment regime.

Thorium has been mentioned, a more abundant fuel source, not able to be enriched into plutonium or other weapon grade compounds and produces less lower grade waste (10 -10,000 times less). The thorium reactor is less likely to melt down as the process requires a constant priming. But due to its need for complex preparation, over and above Uranium its use is very costly, again currently competing with Renewables for cost per kwh. The examples of Thorium reactors, Indias, Kakraper-1 still utilses a plutonium core? The technology of sucessfull Thorium production dates back to WW2, Uranium was ultimately chosen because it would produce weapons grade material?

So all technologies have drawbacks, limitations, and issues that need to be overcome. I stand by my statement, one direction leaves a unsatisfactory legacy the other doesnt.

Justin

[blueoval]

sorry, I had to do it once plutonium was mentioned.

[mik]

jpblue1000, your statement "when nuclear goes wrong its still better than coal", they estimate it might take 4o years to decommision the fukishima reactors, , god knows how long before it will stop spewing out radiation , and we yet may not have seen the worst of it, your statement makes no sense .

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by mik

jpblue1000, your statement "when nuclear goes wrong its still better than coal", they estimate it might take 4o years to decommision the fukishima reactors, , god knows how long before it will stop spewing out radiation , and we yet may not have seen the worst of it, your statement makes no sense .

The damage done by a nuclear meltdown, is instantaneously devestating but to a relatively small locale, isolated to the imediate vacinity and generally contained. thats when it fails. When coal is working as it should, normally producing electricity through it's combustion it spews pollutants globally, that contribute significantly to C02 emmissions amongst many other harmfull compoundsof less immediately concern. A nuclear failure destroys a beach or a city, Coal being used will destroy the globe.

Justin

[Maka]

G'day guys, what are the implications for us here in Oz health wise in the long run & what will be Tepco's fate after all this? Can they (or anyone) fix this mess at all?

For me, this episode should be a damning indictment of the dangers & complexities of this technology, its time to get rid of it! Time to start respecting future generations

cheers, Maka

[jpblue1000]

maka,
we are far enough away in this instance and isolated by favourable winds and currents.
when compared to chrnoble the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant event was a significantly smaller 'accident' with perhaps 5-10 times less the radiation leaked and in a more 'favourable' manner diluted in slow moving water rather than dispersed through large ranging fast winds as with chernoble.

Risks to us come from the impoortation of goods, food, people etc effected by the event. or contamination of items including ship hulls and ballast waters, migratory birds etc.
Studies have been undertaken reviewing this event and its impact on Australia. A reasonable and clear response is here:
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/techn...orts/tr162.pdf
From this even we dont have much to worry about, detected radiation from Fukushima ammounts to no more than acceptable 'background' radiation, which includes natural radiation and man made contributors, x-rays, international flight etc.

Tepco will probably get a slap on the wrist, not unlike the big oil companies do when they stuff up. the directors will still make huge earnings and pay themselves bonuses for avoiding jail time.

Justin

[gtfpv]

i'm a little concerned about sea food . i would imagine fukashima fish would be going fairly cheap at the moment , and i would imagine australia would be buying it and boxing it onto shopping centre shelves .
and i'm not trying to have a joke . i am a little fearfull of eating fish here .

and the bigger picture . i would like to know the effect to sea life this plant and its radio active water is doing .

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

i'm a little concerned about sea food . i would imagine fukashima fish would be going fairly cheap at the moment , and i would imagine australia would be buying it and boxing it onto shopping centre shelves .
and i'm not trying to have a joke . i am a little fearfull of eating fish here .

and the bigger picture . i would like to know the effect to sea life this plant and its radio active water is doing .

read the report!

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/techn...orts/tr162.pdf

[GasoLane]

If you don't want to read the report, or don't have the time, they summed it up here.....


Comparison with the Chernobyl NPP accident. (page 35)

The extent of radioactive releases and the potential health impacts from the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP
accident are very different to those of the 1986 Chernobyl NPP accident.
While the radioactive releases from the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP accident have significantly
contaminated areas in the Fukushima and surrounding prefectures, radioactive contamination in
other parts of Japan and in neighbouring countries is very low and is of negligible health
consequence. There were no worker deaths attributed to direct radiation exposures, nor any cases
of acute radiation syndrome.

9. Conclusions and future work (page 36)

Large amounts of radioactive material were released to the environment during the 2011 Fukushima
Dai-ichi NPP accident. The studies and monitoring programs reported here were undertaken by
ARPANSA in order to assess the impact of the accident on Australian public and the Australian
environment, as well as to have confidence that Australian public could be protected from the
harmful effects of potential radiation exposure.

ARPANSA has assessed that the impact on the health of people living in Australia due to the
Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP accident was negligible. This assessment was based on:

• Very low levels of 133Xe detected in Darwin during April 2011, which were assessed to have
no impact on the health of any person living in Australia. No radioactive caesium or iodine
from the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP accident was detected at Australian monitoring stations.

• International ocean modelling, which predicts that it will take 5 to 15 years for any
radioactive material from the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP accident to reach Australian waters by
which time it will have been significantly diluted to levels that would be difficult to detect.

• The monitoring program for imported foods from Japan, which found small amounts of
contamination in some foods, with no foods tested exceeding internationally accepted
limits. Small amounts of contamination were found on military aircraft and in ship ballast
water. At such low contamination levels the impact on human health would be negligible.

• Testing of imported new and used vehicles and surfaces of shipping vessels, which were
found to have no radioactive contamination.

• A dose assessment and radioactive contamination screening of Mutton Birds, which found
no radioactive contamination on or in any birds tested.

• An assessment of the radiation doses received by members of a family living 60 km northwest
of the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP during the accident. Results of the external assessment
and urine and whole body monitoring suggested that doses were minimal.

[mik]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

The damage done by a nuclear meltdown, is instantaneously devestating but to a relatively small locale, isolated to the imediate vacinity and generally contained. thats when it fails. When coal is working as it should, normally producing electricity through it's combustion it spews pollutants globally, that contribute significantly to C02 emmissions amongst many other harmfull compoundsof less immediately concern. A nuclear failure destroys a beach or a city, Coal being used will destroy the globe.

Justin

Dunno if I'm as confident as you in the assessment ,I can see the reasoning, but I see in the report there are some assumptions made, and what happens down the track as pollution starts to get around......... say in 15 years? At least with coal yes its dirty and probably not real good for you, but coal has been around for a lot longer than nuclear , open fireplaces and briqquette heaters have been around since the dark ages, I grew up with them, at least with coal I know my kids more than likely wouldn't grow up with 2 head's or no arms, not to mention if I'm not mistaken birth defects can show up in later generations, so there are some big question marks imo , so we might agree to disagree.