From "Technically speaking"


Equitist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 11:27am:

My emotive delivery is a pragmatic reflection of the real and inherent risks involved - that some would inexplicably pretend do not exist... I agree on the grave issues surrounding coal-fired power but some forces should never be unleashed - and IM(not-so)HO: toying with nuclear energy (and associated radioactive contamination) poses the single most dangerous and avoidable risk that humanity has ever faced! Seriously, we already have the technology and capacity to develop infinitely less risky renewable alternatives - so there is no need to go there with inherently-risky nukes...

Here are some actual risk factors,

Risks Estimated to Increase the Probability of Death in Any Year by
One Chance in a Million (These are all equal risks)

1. Living 5 years at the site boundary of a typical nuclear power plant

2. Drinking 30 cans of diet soft drink

3. Flying 10,000 km by Jet (Cosmic ray radiation)

4. Living 2 months in an average stone or brick
building (cancer caused by natural radioactivity)

5. Living 2 months with a cigarette smoker

6. Smoking 1.4 cigarettes

7. Traveling 500 km by car

8. One chest X ray taken in a good hospital (radiation)

9. Living 50 years within 8km of a nuclear power plant

10. Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter (risk of aflatoxin B poisoning)

Wilson, R., “Analyzing the Daily Risks of Life.” Technology Review, 81, 1979, pp. 40–46.

The biggest single risk factor that I could find was sky diving (with a parachute) Smoking came a close second.

In terms of energy generation, this is borne out by statistics, even taking into account the worst possible case (Chernobyl)

Deaths from various forms of Electricity Generation (2001 Study):

Coal 6400
Natural Gas 1200
Hydro  4000
Nuclear 31


Quote:

Basis: per million MWe operating for one year, not including plant construction, based on historic data which is unlikely to represent current safety levels in any of the industries concerned. Source: Severe Accidents in the Energy Sector, Paul Scherrer Institut, 2001).

---

Due to our vast desolate waste land,(middle-Australia)  our country is well suited to generating nuclear energy well away from our coastal fringes, with minimal risk of contamination, in the unlikely event an accident should occur.


8-)...

U.S. AEC, forerunner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States Department of Energy spoke of electricity in the future being "too cheap to meter, this might be what's holding us back.

Cant impose a tax on what doesn't exist, ETS wise, now can we.


We could always impose a fresh air tax (FAT) or something I guess... ;)

Ironically, since 2007, we have seen a sharp decline in new nuclear plants being added to the grid, 2008 being the first year ever whereby none was added, and only 1 or two (from memory) were added to the grid during 2009.

Even stranger, some countries formerly pro-nuclear appear to be closing their plants down, for no apparent reason at all.

mellie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 8:43pm:

U.S. AEC, forerunner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States Department of Energy spoke of electricity in the future being "too cheap to meter, this might be what's holding us back. Cant impose a tax on what doesn't exist, ETS wise, now can we. We could always impose a fresh air tax (FAT) or something I guess... ;) Ironically, since 2007, we have seen a sharp decline in new nuclear plants being added to the grid, 2008 being the first year ever whereby none was added, and only 1 or two (from memory) were added to the grid during 2009. Even stranger, some countries formerly pro-nuclear appear to be closing their plants down, for no apparent reason at all. [timestamp=1281782745]

Hmmnnn...."for no apparent reason at all"!?

Perhaps you could enligten us, as to which plants and where - plus the official reason/s given!?

Perhaps you could enlighten yourself and make google your friend and resist the urge to have others think for you.

I made a statement, it's up to you to find the flaws in my argument, presuming you can find any of course.  8-)

Remember, google is your friend equ...

... So that's a start...

 ;) Some people don't have any at all.

muso wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 7:52pm:

From "Technically speaking" Equitist wrote on Aug 13th, 2010 at 11:27am: My emotive delivery is a pragmatic reflection of the real and inherent risks involved - that some would inexplicably pretend do not exist... I agree on the grave issues surrounding coal-fired power but some forces should never be unleashed - and IM(not-so)HO: toying with nuclear energy (and associated radioactive contamination) poses the single most dangerous and avoidable risk that humanity has ever faced! Seriously, we already have the technology and capacity to develop infinitely less risky renewable alternatives - so there is no need to go there with inherently-risky nukes... Here are some actual risk factors, Risks Estimated to Increase the Probability of Death in Any Year by One Chance in a Million (These are all equal risks) 1. Living 5 years at the site boundary of a typical nuclear power plant 2. Drinking 30 cans of diet soft drink 3. Flying 10,000 km by Jet (Cosmic ray radiation) 4. Living 2 months in an average stone or brick building (cancer caused by natural radioactivity) 5. Living 2 months with a cigarette smoker 6. Smoking 1.4 cigarettes 7. Traveling 500 km by car 8. One chest X ray taken in a good hospital (radiation) 9. Living 50 years within 8km of a nuclear power plant 10. Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter (risk of aflatoxin B poisoning) Wilson, R., “Analyzing the Daily Risks of Life.” Technology Review, 81, 1979, pp. 40–46. The biggest single risk factor that I could find was sky diving (with a parachute) Smoking came a close second. In terms of energy generation, this is borne out by statistics, even taking into account the worst possible case (Chernobyl) Deaths from various forms of Electricity Generation (2001 Study): Coal 6400 Natural Gas 1200 Hydro  4000 Nuclear 31 Quote: Basis: per million MWe operating for one year, not including plant construction, based on historic data which is unlikely to represent current safety levels in any of the industries concerned. Source: Severe Accidents in the Energy Sector, Paul Scherrer Institut, 2001).

Hmmnnn...a lot has changed in the 3 decades since 1979 - notably the Chernobyl incident!

Oh, and the Three Mile Island incident occured in 1979 - so I wonder whether that journal article was written pre or post same!?

I, for one, would be curious to see the revised list - as at, say, 2009 - especially since all of the Nuke plants built by 1979 have now reached the end of their original lifespan - but many have received approval to tempt fate for another decade or so...

Dunno about anybody else, but: I'm betting that Nuke plants don't get safer as they age!?

There are other figures, and they don't change all that significantly after Chernobyl. I have the references at work. I'll try to dig them up for you if I can find some time free from the Department of Climate Change and their demands at this time of the year.

Apart from that the Chernobyl design was a disaster waiting to happen. There are no RBMK reactors now, and all reactors are build to fail-safe. They can't melt down.

Chernobyl itself had around 70 deaths (tops) and around 240 people diagnosed with acute radiation sickness who made a full recovery.

The area around Chernobyl itself is the most successful wildlife park in Europe.

Other forms of renewable energy would result in numbers of people being laid off work...so what ever alternative we invest in would need to sustain an existing coal powered industry, workforce and economy, because it's difficult charging people for wind energy powered by fresh air, yes?

Would you mind listing some alternatives to nuclear that might provide a viable alternative to our current coal fired plants equ.

:) And about the other matter you mentioned of plants not being replaced, well, I agree, this is very irresponsible, though I think if we could get old Gillard to write that they be changed every 30 years or so into our constitution some how, (like she does everything else) I cant see this being a problem for us, and like I said, it's not like we lack space.

Take France for instance, whereby something like 80% of their electricity is nuclear generated, and look how small their country is.

Comparatively tiny to our sprawling desolate already naturally radioactive middle-earth.

We have a dead red centre, why not put it to good use?

8-) I'm your friend Equ, so that's 2.

Equitist wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 8:47pm:

mellie wrote on Aug 14th, 2010 at 8:43pm: U.S. AEC, forerunner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States Department of Energy spoke of electricity in the future being "too cheap to meter, this might be what's holding us back. Cant impose a tax on what doesn't exist, ETS wise, now can we. We could always impose a fresh air tax (FAT) or something I guess... ;) Ironically, since 2007, we have seen a sharp decline in new nuclear plants being added to the grid, 2008 being the first year ever whereby none was added, and only 1 or two (from memory) were added to the grid during 2009. Even stranger, some countries formerly pro-nuclear appear to be closing their plants down, for no apparent reason at all. [timestamp=1281782745] Hmmnnn...."for no apparent reason at all"!? Perhaps you could enligten us, as to which plants and where - plus the official reason/s given!?

I think the 'reasons' might be apparent.....

The plants are getting old, and the cost of replacing them with new plants is rising due to the GFC....

Not an indictment of safety....more of a problem with constructionj costs....

mellie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 9:19pm:

Other forms of renewable energy would result in numbers of people being laid off work...so what ever alternative we invest in would need to sustain an existing coal powered industry, workforce and economy, because it's difficult charging people for wind energy powered by fresh air, yes? Would you mind listing some alternatives to nuclear that might provide a viable alternative to our current coal fired plants equ. :) And about the other matter you mentioned of plants not being replaced, well, I agree, this is very irresponsible, though I think if we could get old Gillard to write that they be changed every 30 years or so into our constitution some how, (like she does everything else) I cant see this being a problem for us, and like I said, it's not like we lack space. Take France for instance, whereby something like 80% of their electricity is nuclear generated, and look how small their country is. Comparatively tiny to our sprawling desolate already naturally radioactive middle-earth. We have a dead red centre, why not put it to good use? 8-) I'm your friend Equ, so that's 2.

There is no need to place nuclear power plants in the red centre. The technology is far safer than other generation technology by a significant factor.

I'd also like to see geothermal energy given a fair go.  That has a real potential, and generating electricity from steam is proven technology.

http://www.geothermal-resources.com.au/

muso wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 9:25pm:

mellie wrote on Aug 14th, 2010 at 9:19pm: Other forms of renewable energy would result in numbers of people being laid off work...so what ever alternative we invest in would need to sustain an existing coal powered industry, workforce and economy, because it's difficult charging people for wind energy powered by fresh air, yes? Would you mind listing some alternatives to nuclear that might provide a viable alternative to our current coal fired plants equ. :) And about the other matter you mentioned of plants not being replaced, well, I agree, this is very irresponsible, though I think if we could get old Gillard to write that they be changed every 30 years or so into our constitution some how, (like she does everything else) I cant see this being a problem for us, and like I said, it's not like we lack space. Take France for instance, whereby something like 80% of their electricity is nuclear generated, and look how small their country is. Comparatively tiny to our sprawling desolate already naturally radioactive middle-earth. We have a dead red centre, why not put it to good use? 8-) I'm your friend Equ, so that's 2. There is no need to place nuclear power plants in the red centre. The technology is far safer than other generation technology by a significant factor. I'd also like to see geothermal energy given a fair go.  That has a real potential, and generating electricity from steam is proven technology. http://www.geothermal-resources.com.au/

Perhaps a multifaceted approach then, a combination of various technologies, in accordance with regional viability.

:)
Muso wrote: (precisely 6 minutes and 47 seconds ago)

Quote:

There is no need to place nuclear power plants in the red centre. The technology is far safer than other generation technology by a significant factor.

But there's the paranoid greenies to think about, so.....out of sight, out of mind kinda thing, or else we risk them gluing themselves to reactors in full view of the public.

Better to be safe than sorry,  ;)

mellie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 9:41pm:

muso wrote on Aug 14th, 2010 at 9:25pm: mellie wrote on Aug 14th, 2010 at 9:19pm: Other forms of renewable energy would result in numbers of people being laid off work...so what ever alternative we invest in would need to sustain an existing coal powered industry, workforce and economy, because it's difficult charging people for wind energy powered by fresh air, yes? Would you mind listing some alternatives to nuclear that might provide a viable alternative to our current coal fired plants equ. :) And about the other matter you mentioned of plants not being replaced, well, I agree, this is very irresponsible, though I think if we could get old Gillard to write that they be changed every 30 years or so into our constitution some how, (like she does everything else) I cant see this being a problem for us, and like I said, it's not like we lack space. Take France for instance, whereby something like 80% of their electricity is nuclear generated, and look how small their country is. Comparatively tiny to our sprawling desolate already naturally radioactive middle-earth. We have a dead red centre, why not put it to good use? 8-) I'm your friend Equ, so that's 2. There is no need to place nuclear power plants in the red centre. The technology is far safer than other generation technology by a significant factor. I'd also like to see geothermal energy given a fair go.  That has a real potential, and generating electricity from steam is proven technology. http://www.geothermal-resources.com.au/ Perhaps a multifaceted approach then, a combination of various technologies, in accordance with regional viability. :) Muso wrote: (precisely 6 minutes and 47 seconds ago) Quote: There is no need to place nuclear power plants in the red centre. The technology is far safer than other generation technology by a significant factor. But there's the paranoid greenies to think about, so.....out of sight, out of mind kinda thing, or else we risk them gluing themselves to reactors in full view of the public. Better to be safe than sorry,  ;)

Ewww...that's a scarey image...lots of unwashed, long-haired weirdos in tye-died t-shirts, covering themselves in Peck's Paste and leaping onto a Reactor containment housing....

LOL

Quote:

Ewww...that's a scarey image...lots of unwashed, long-haired weirdos in tye-died t-shirts, covering themselves in Peck's Paste and leaping onto a Reactor containment housing....

by Giz
LOL, thanks for that, I just dropped my Frosty fruit in my lap.

;D

mellie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 9:41pm:

But there's the paranoid greenies to think about, so.....out of sight, out of mind kinda thing, or else we risk them gluing themselves to reactors in full view of the public. Better to be safe than sorry,  ;)

Hmmm. Maybe we could expose them to some high level radiation - a welcoming barbecue.  

No seriously, I find it hard to hide my distaste for these headless chooks. I prefer to base my decisions on actual risk.

These people do us no favours. Greenpeace is basically a multinational corporation, and the activists  they employ are totally oblivious to that fact.

Their opposition to nuclear power is damaging our future. We are dealing with a very serious issue (Dangerous Climate disruptions that will seriously affect our economy), and the headless enviro-chooks are hijacking it for their own ends.  

muso wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 10:01pm:

mellie wrote on Aug 14th, 2010 at 9:41pm: But there's the paranoid greenies to think about, so.....out of sight, out of mind kinda thing, or else we risk them gluing themselves to reactors in full view of the public. Better to be safe than sorry,  ;) Hmmm. Maybe we could expose them to some high level radiation - a welcoming barbecue.   No seriously, I find it hard to hide my distaste for these headless chooks. I prefer to base my decisions on actual risk. These people do us no favours. Greenpeace is basically a multinational corporation, and the activists  they employ are totally oblivious to that fact. Their opposition to nuclear power is damaging our future. We are dealing with a very serious issue (Dangerous Climate disruptions that will seriously affect our economy), and the headless enviro-chooks are hijacking it for their own ends.

I am inclined to agree with you.

Either they are truly ignorant/prejudice to a cleaner nuclear alternative  because their 'almost' religion wont permit research in this area, or their enlightened leaders have intentions of capitalising on alternatives...  I think a combination of both.

A green-left perspective ......

Australia's anti-nuclear movement: a short history

By Jim Green  (August 26, 1998)


http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/16973

As I've said before, the German or Canadian Greens could teach our lot a few lessons on economic accountability.

We have a problem that needs to be fixed, but let's not try to solve all the poverty woes of the world in the process.  There will always be rich people and poor people. Remove that (an impossible dream) and you remove the concept of survival of the fittest.

I believe in a Pareto approach to emissions. Fix the main problem.  We should not under any circumstances be subsidizing poor countries. If they had any initiative, they would have shown it by now.

I've said it before but it's like the airline safety spiel that says (paraphrased)'...in the event of pressurization of the cabin, fit your own oxygen mask first, then attend to infants and children.'

The rich nations of the world need to stay strong and attend to their own responsibilities first. If China wants to join that club, they will need to continue to stand on their own merits.