Those who can see AGW hitting the world want to do what we can to reduce the amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere. Replacing coal generators with nuclear ones is one way of doing that.

Lots of hysteria, of course, about nuclear energy “Chernobyl!” “Three Mile Island!” “Fukushima!” go the NIMBYs.

Bah! Modern nuclear is safe and we can site it well away from faults and tsunamis!

I am one who says we need to start building nuclear powered generators. The English, the French, the Chinese, Indians and seppos will be happy to sell us modern, safe technology.

The present shambolic Lib govt is not planning at all to replace all the coal fired generators that will reach their end of life over the next couple of decades. Hell, looking at the day after tomorrow is too big a reach for the Libs! But we need to start NOW to plan for nuclear energy!

Those reacting “No no no might blow up!” modern plants won’t blow up. But coal fired generators emitting particulate emissions cause respiratory diseases, even death, for those living around/downwind of them. Coal is not risk free!

Here is a transcript of a discussion of nuclear energy:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6172217

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

This from the Champion of the Environment and the AGW Alarmist Supreme.

Questions...
How long does it take to build, authorise and bring online a nuclear power Station?
How much do they cost?
How dangerous to life and the environment is radioactive waste?
What is a half-life and what is the average of today's waste products?

Modular reactors.

Will take whatever time it takes. With several coal fired generators reaching the end of life over the next 20 years it makes sense to plan and start building them now.

A half life is the time for half of the radioactivity to be used up.

Deniers call anybody who can see AGW progressing an alarmist. I reject that term. I am not an alarmist but I point out what is happening.

We have abundant places to store waste safely.

Hopefully fusion will become commercial soon but we cannot trust the power we need as a nation to a hope.

I am an environmentalist: we only have one planet, no plan B! The most urgent need is to reduce GHG emissions. If nuclear will let us have that then let us go nuclear.

I have long been an advocate for nuclear power.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:33am:

We have abundant places to store waste safely.

for how long?

A billion years? 2/3 or Australia is craton—stable.

I'm pro nuclear for air pollution and geo-political reasons.

Australia should have 5 reactors and we could ween ourselves off oil and it's toxic emissions and the toxic wahhiabism that it funds.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:39am:

A billion years? 2/3 or Australia is craton—stable.

How can you say it'll be safely stored anywhere beyond the next 50 yrs? The world is far different to what it was a centruy ago, let alone 1 billion years ago.

If we put a nice big nuke somewhere near Pt Augusta. It has all the infrastructure (cables & towers etc) to serve SA and no doubt a Riverland interconnector could be built to sell power to NSW.

The “Iron Triangle” at the top of Spencers Gulf would get a real boost. Aluminium smelters would relocate there, etc, a new nuclear engineering faculty would be created there. Waste heat could be used to desalinate water for Eyre Peninsula, etc.

And as coal fired generators close we drastically cut our GHG emissions.

John Smith wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:43am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:39am: A billion years? 2/3 or Australia is craton—stable. How can you say it'll be safely stored anywhere beyond the next 50 yrs? The world is far different to what it was a centruy ago, let alone 1 billion years ago.

Geologically, not really.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:43am:

If we put a nice big nuke somewhere near Pt Augusta. It has all the infrastructure (cables & towers etc) to serve SA and no doubt a Riverland interconnector could be built to sell power to NSW. The “Iron Triangle” at the top of Spencers Gulf would get a real boost. Aluminium smelters would relocate there, etc, a new nuclear engineering faculty would be created there. Waste heat could be used to desalinate water for Eyre Peninsula, etc. And as coal fired generators close we drastically cut our GHG emissions.

The further away the power source the greater the drop off due to resistance in the transmission lines, for example the power for NQLD comes initial from Gladstone over 1000 kms away. That power loss is around 30% which is added to our power bills and makes for a sh1tty bill every quarter.


So unless you main user is within a few 100 kms from the power it will be a tough sell.


Also our carbon output is about 1% of the entire planets carbon output, we don't need to "drastically cut our GHG emissions"

We should do our bit.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:37am:

We should do our bit.

A very small and inexpensive bit, for sure

Like replacing coal fired generators as they reach end of life with nuclear. Doesn’t mean we don’t continue with renewable energy.

Can’t see why a suitable site for a nuke plant could not be found in FNQ, power FNQ and some of the NT.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:53am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:43am: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:39am: A billion years? 2/3 or Australia is craton—stable. How can you say it'll be safely stored anywhere beyond the next 50 yrs? The world is far different to what it was a centruy ago, let alone 1 billion years ago. Geologically, not really.

geopolitically?

John Smith wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:50am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:53am: John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:43am: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:39am: A billion years? 2/3 or Australia is craton—stable. How can you say it'll be safely stored anywhere beyond the next 50 yrs? The world is far different to what it was a centruy ago, let alone 1 billion years ago. Geologically, not really. geopolitically?

So we shouldnt do something, because we might be invaded?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:56am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:50am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:53am: John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:43am: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:39am: A billion years? 2/3 or Australia is craton—stable. How can you say it'll be safely stored anywhere beyond the next 50 yrs? The world is far different to what it was a centruy ago, let alone 1 billion years ago. Geologically, not really. geopolitically? So we shouldnt do something, because we might be invaded?

No, you shouldn't do something that you cannot guarantee for life.

Besides, if you add up the cost of safeguarding the waste for the next billion years, it's not even close to being cheap.

More likely to be invaded if AGW keeps warming the globe.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:44am:

Like replacing coal fired generators as they reach end of life with nuclear. Doesn’t mean we don’t continue with renewable energy. Can’t see why a suitable site for a nuke plant could not be found in FNQ, power FNQ and some of the NT.

Somewhere on the other side of the Great Divide, with access to water, there is a sh1tload of uranium up near Townsville to stock it.  :)

Didn’t know about the shitload of uranium near Townsville but I haven’t been north of Gladstone. Certainly worth investigating.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

Didn’t know about the shitload of uranium near Townsville but I haven’t been north of Gladstone. Certainly worth investigating.

Problem is, that the deposit sits just above the Burdekin dam and no-one will allow that to be contaminated.  :) :)

Well, we have Olympic Dam. Not like you need truckloads of uranium.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:58am:

More likely to be invaded if AGW keeps warming the globe.

We already are....

The Americans don't want us in the Nuclear Power game,... simple: so it won't happen- it's a red herring.

Fvvck the yanks, plenty of countries will sell us a nuke.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:25pm:

Fvvck the yanks, plenty of countries will sell us a nuke.

Yeh, but we go to war with the yanks!

:o

Don’t be silly, DRAH. Bet the yanks will GIVE us a nuke plant if we start talking to the Chinese about one  :)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:29pm:

Don’t be silly, DRAH. Bet the yanks will GIVE us a nuke plant if we start talking to the Chinese about one  :)

Lol, why would we do that?

:o

If we start talking to the Chinese the yanks will think we are moving into the Chinese sphere and panic.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:29pm:

Don’t be silly, DRAH. Bet the yanks will GIVE us a nuke plant if we start talking to the Chinese about one  :)

they don't have to give us one. We already have one. Lucas Heights.

We know how to build them if we wanted to go that route.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:35pm:

If we start talking to the Chinese the yanks will think we are moving into the Chinese sphere and panic.

Lol, all over an inconsequential power plant that just boils water?

Lucas Heights is small and not a generator.

Will take too long to build our own.

If we buy a breeder reactor it will “burn” its waste.

But many coal fired generators are due to be retired over the next 20 years, why not plan a modular reactor, start small and build it up.

BigOle’s statement re losses in transmission need not be an insuperable obstacle: ultra high voltage DC loses very little.

John Smith wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:39pm:

they don't have to give us one. We already have one. Lucas Heights. We know how to build them if we wanted to go that route.

Nope. Didn't design or build it.

"The Argentine company INVAP was fully responsible through a turnkey contract, signed in June 2000, for the delivery of the reactor, performing the design, construction and commissioning.Local civil construction was performed by INVAP's partner, John Holland-Evans Deakin Industries.[1] The facility features a large (20-litre) liquid-deuterium cold neutron source,[2] modern supermirror guides, and a 35 m × 65 m guide hall. The cold source was designed by the Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute,[3] the cryogenic system designed and supplied by Air Liquide and the initial set of four supermirror guides supplied by Mirrotron.[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pool_Australian_lightwater_reactor

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:44pm:

Lucas Heights is small and not a generator.

I know it's not a generator. But if we wanted to we have the know how to build one without needing to ask the yanks or the Chinese.

Maybe, but it would take much longer and we don’t have that much time—those coal fired generators will be switched off over the next two decades.

Grendel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:22am:

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D This from the Champion of the Environment and the AGW Alarmist Supreme. Questions... How long does it take to build, authorise and bring online a nuclear power Station? How much do they cost? How dangerous to life and the environment is radioactive waste? What is a half-life and what is the average of today's waste products?

How would you like to try answering these questions this time with some actual facts and specifics....  or don't you have any? :D :D :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:37am:

We should do our bit.

We do do our bit...

How long does it take to build, authorise and bring online a nuclear power Station? 20 years
How much do they cost? A lot.
How dangerous to life and the environment is radioactive waste? Can be managed
What is a half-life and what is the average of today's waste products? A half life is the time half the radioactive material decays. Time to lose all radioactivity, 2–300,000 years

Hope this helps.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:25pm:

Fvvck the yanks, plenty of countries will sell us a nuke.

Really.
You believe any bullsh you read including the crap from Trainwreck?

The yanks are happy for us to buy Nuclear Power Equipment from them
They are also very happy to use us as a global dump for waste.
Us having a NP program will only make that more likely.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:29pm:

Don’t be silly, DRAH. Bet the yanks will GIVE us a nuke plant if we start talking to the Chinese about one  :)

LOL
Finally wake up did you?
BTW a Chinese Pebble Bed reactor is a better design than many US designs.  Just on safety alone.

I hope the yanks do send their waste to SA. We can store it safely and make a motza doing so.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 2:44pm:

Lucas Heights is small and not a generator. Will take too long to build our own. If we buy a breeder reactor it will “burn” its waste. But many coal fired generators are due to be retired over the next 20 years, why not plan a modular reactor, start small and build it up. BigOle’s statement re losses in transmission need not be an insuperable obstacle: ultra high voltage DC loses very little.

Oh dear just so you know there is still at the end of the process highly radioactive waste.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

How long does it take to build, authorise and bring online a nuclear power Station? 20 years How much do they cost? A lot. How dangerous to life and the environment is radioactive waste? Can be managed What is a half-life and what is the average of today's waste products? A half life is the time half the radioactive material decays. Time to lose all radioactivity, 2–300,000 years Hope this helps.

Try again. ::) ::) ::)

But not as much.

Homework for Monk.

There are no working fusion reactors and they are unlikely to exist in our lifetimes.

Thorium reactors are the way to go and probably the next big thing.

India and us have lots of Thorium.


Oh if you are so lazy or ignorant I can answer the questions for you.

BTW the last US reactor took 43 years to build and commission.

Can be done quicker than that.

Like I said, modular.

But we have to decarbonise or cook.

Fusion is uncertain but advances do get made. I raised fusion only to say we cannot rely on it  being made commercial in time.

Grendel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:24pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 2:25pm: Fvvck the yanks, plenty of countries will sell us a nuke. Really. You believe any bullsh you read including the crap from Trainwreck? The yanks are happy for us to buy Nuclear Power Equipment from them They are also very happy to use us as a global dump for waste. Us having a NP program will only make that more likely.

Grendel knows nothing  :o

WTF is “Trainwreck?”

Grendel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:26pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 2:29pm: Don’t be silly, DRAH. Bet the yanks will GIVE us a nuke plant if we start talking to the Chinese about one  :) LOL Finally wake up did you? BTW a Chinese Pebble Bed reactor is a better design than many US designs.  Just on safety alone.

The Americans want us to dump the waste but not get into Nuclear Power: full stop! ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:48pm:

WTF is “Trainwreck?”

Its Grendel trying to pretend hes got my number  ;D

No, DRAH, they will sell us a reactor.

Nuclear is not a quick fix nor an easy one. I just think it is essential.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:50pm:

No, DRAH, they will sell us a reactor. Nuclear is not a quick fix nor an easy one. I just think it is essential.

Sure, the big populations of the world can't decarbonise without them in the immediate future: but the safety of the world means this technology can't go everywhere.

The yanks have told us not to get involved in it for this exact reason: remember, we rely on them for self defence and there is hundreds of millions of muslims a few hundred kilometres off our coastlines.

Fvvck them. Buy off the chinese if the yanks won’t sell to us. Muslims (Pakistan, Iran) already have nuclear tech anyway.

They want to send their waste here we tell them: build a nuke generator for us.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 4:26pm:

They want to send their waste here we tell them: build a nuke generator for us.

so now, not only do you want to build nukes and ignore the dangers that the waste creates, you want to import the waste from other countries?  Nick off.

Yup. We can store it safely.

Don’t worry, you won’t have to wear lead britches there in Qld.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 4:59pm:

Yup. We can store it safely. Don’t worry, you won’t have to wear lead britches there in Qld.

is the reason you're so blase about the potential disaster this can create because you won't be around to have to clean up if something goes wrong?

Modern nuke plants are safe, waste can be treated and stored safely.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 5:11pm:

Modern nuke plants are safe, waste can be treated and stored safely.

they're only safe until the next thing goes wrong.

No.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 5:14pm:

No.

Australia doesn't want to store the worlds nuclear waste: end of story!

We didn't create it!

We DO want to store it because we can store it more safely then anywhere else.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 5:27pm:

We DO want to store it because we can store it more safely then anywhere else.

No, the dickheads of this world created it and they have to solve it!

Either America respects our sovereignity and doesn't shove it up our arse or they do.

All things have limits: nothing grows exponentially!

The yanks and whoever else will have to pay BIG BICCIES for us to take their waste, process it and store it.

Will make a motza for SA!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Can be done quicker than that. Like I said, modular. But we have to decarbonise or cook.

You Sir!
Are an alarmist fruitcake.... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 5:14pm:

No.

well if you say so  :D :D :D :D :D

do you honestly think you can plan and prepare for every possible eventually that we might encounter for the next 100 000 years? Get real.

And you are a scared little denialist.

Go read some more JoNova rubbish.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

But not as much.

Yes much....  not as much, but still much and much that can have a 1/2 life of up to 10,000 years

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 5:47pm:

The yanks and whoever else will have to pay BIG BICCIES for us to take their waste, process it and store it. Will make a motza for SA!

This country is a joke: we'll spend it on upgrading the copper internet whilst the world inflames itself on nuclear madness because it found the holy burial site!

It doesn't work for anyone... least of all us as a supposedly good world citizen.

The consuming voter needs its pride !!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:35pm:

Fusion is uncertain but advances do get made. I raised fusion only to say we cannot rely on it  being made commercial in time.

Not in any time in the forseeable future...

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 4:59pm:

Yup. We can store it safely. Don’t worry, you won’t have to wear lead britches there in Qld.

Really?
No one can there is always risk and the risk will last for thousands and thousands of years...that is a long term expense.

Grendel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 5:54pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 3:35pm: Fusion is uncertain but advances do get made. I raised fusion only to say we cannot rely on it  being made commercial in time. In any time in the forseeable future...

The one thing I agree with Grendel on has just been found  ;D

My dad reckons it will happen but I reckon he's trippin'  ;D ;D

We don’t know which is why we can’t rely on it.

Be great: buy a new car, pour a cup of water into the fuel tank, good to go for 500,000Km!

Each house has its own fusion generator, etc.

The independence it gives!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 5:57pm:

We don’t know which is why we can’t rely on it. Be great: buy a new car, pour a cup of water into the fuel tank, good to go for 500,000Km! Each house has its own fusion generator, etc. The independence it gives!

You sound like an english teacher right now (I almost spelled that, 'write', lol 8-) )  :o :o :o

Should we fly around in delorians aswell?

You watch too much back to the future.
problem is you think its real. :D :D :D :D :D

http://www.bttf.net/v/vspfiles/photos/21020-4.jpg

Just

e = mc²

Grendel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:

Homework for Monk. There are no working fusion reactors and they are unlikely to exist in our lifetimes. Thorium reactors are the way to go and probably the next big thing. India and us have lots of Thorium. Oh if you are so lazy or ignorant I can answer the questions for you. BTW the last US reactor took 43 years to build and commission.

Fusion could be commercialised any time.

But we cannot plan on that—like you don’t finance a house by buying a lottery ticket.

So we press ahead with what we have, fission.

Grendel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:22am:

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D This from the Champion of the Environment and the AGW Alarmist Supreme. Questions... How long does it take to build, authorise and bring online a nuclear power Station?  Depends on the size, smaller is less...  but on average 10-30 years. How much do they cost? $3-9billion US. How dangerous to life and the environment is radioactive waste? All current Nuclear reactors create waste fatal to all lifeforms and with the ability to pollute the environment and water sources for many thousands of years. What is a half-life and what is the average of today's waste products? Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years.  It's half-life is the time when (half the radioactivity will decay away.)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 6:07pm:

Fusion could be commercialised any time. But we cannot plan on that—like you don’t finance a house by buying a lottery ticket. So we press ahead with what we have, fission.

It won't be commercialised at any time soon, there are no working fusion reactors or prototypes currently in the world.

However, we do need to plan for substantial amount of new generation capacity. Coal fired power is not without risks:

1. Emissions from coal fired generators cause respiratory diseases and even deaths

2. GHG emissions raising the temperature of the globe.

Coal or nuclear it is going to cost.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 5:50pm:

And you are a scared little denialist. Go read some more JoNova rubbish.

not game to answer the question?

only a moron wouldn't be scared of nuclear.

Nuclear has risks. So does coal fired power generation.

Risks are known and we are well placed to store the waste.

If we have nuclear power (and Labor make the NBN all FTTH again) we are well placed to move ahead despite any crisis that faces us.

If we meander, dreamlike, under the Libs we will find ourselves in the poop with neither a decent power network or communications, hampering manufacturing, trade, employment. We can lift tariffs to what our trading partners levy on our exports and get manufacturing going again. With improvements to education there is not limit to us.

But we have to get out of this scared little girl stance on nuclear and get rid of this shambolic Lib government!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 8:36pm:

Nuclear has risks. So does coal fired power generation.

ohhh please. You want to try to compare the two?

What happens if Lucas heights were to leaks compared to a coal powered generator?

John Smith wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 8:46pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:36pm: Nuclear has risks. So does coal fired power generation. ohhh please. You want to try to compare the two? What happens if Lucas heights were to leaks compared to a coal powered generator?

The new generation of nucs are very very safe.

And coal fired generators see coal miners die and the emissions cause AGW and respiratory disease.

There is no obvious, comfy safe choice. We are adults and should make a rational decision on comparative costs and benefits.

Definite risks and problems with coal, manageable risks with nuclear.

People always think nuclear is boo, scary!

When Katrina hammered New Orleans I was chatting to a US nuclear engineer (on a brew board  ;) ) and asked what about the New Orleans nuclear generator, if that got flooded. He said if the oil refinery there got flooded it would be worse.

Do not forget that coal mining, especially the underground version, is one of the most dangerous occupations.

As well as GHG emissions coal fired generators emit uranium and cadmium out their chimney stacks. Other problems can include fires like we saw in Victoria not that long ago.

Neither course is risk free. Neither course.

We know clean coal is bullshit. You burn coal you emit CO2 and CO2 and some other gases are cooking the world.

Modern nuclear does not blow up. We can situate the reactor and the waste depository safely away from active faults and out of reach of tsunamis. There is the Mt Painter abandoned uranium mine etc where waste can be stored. Some can no doubt be stored in deep abandoned lead-silver-zinc mines in Broken Hill, giving that town new life, Olympic Dam etc.

Gordon wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 8:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:46pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:36pm: Nuclear has risks. So does coal fired power generation. ohhh please. You want to try to compare the two? What happens if Lucas heights were to leaks compared to a coal powered generator? The new generation of nucs are very very safe.

How safe will the be when Kim jung Ill drops a missile on one?  Or an earthquake tears one apart? And you have to store the waste for 100 000 yrs.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:03pm:

And coal fired generators see coal miners die and the emissions cause AGW and respiratory disease. There is no obvious, comfy safe choice. We are adults and should make a rational decision on comparative costs and benefits. Definite risks and problems with coal, manageable risks with nuclear.

comparative costs? How much will it cost to safeguard the waste for the next 100 000 years?

Waste can be treated with the CSIRO Sincrete process then deeply buried. Can’t see why costs would be prohibitive.

Jovial,
have you got any idea of how much pressure is inside a nuclear reactor?
To me it's like a pressure cooker bomb ready to explode when neutron embrittlement causes the metal to break.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor

Quote:

Light water is used as the primary coolant in a PWR. Water enters through the bottom of the reactor's core at about 548 K (275 °C; 527 °F) and is heated as it flows upwards through the reactor core to a temperature of about 588 K (315 °C; 599 °F). The water remains liquid despite the high temperature due to the high pressure in the primary coolant loop, usually around 155 bar (15.5 MPa 153 atm, 2,250 psi). In water, the critical point occurs at around 647 K (374 °C; 705 °F) and 22.064 MPa (3200 psi or 218 atm).[7]

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:33pm:

Waste can be treated with the CSIRO Sincrete process then deeply buried. Can’t see why costs would be prohibitive.

Building a sophisticated underground nuclear waste storage facility could cost up to $33 billion
.........
The total capital cost of constructing, decommissioning and then closing the facilities at the end of the 120-year life has been estimated at $41 billion




http://www.smh.com.au/business/underground-nuclear-waste-facility-could-cost-33-billion-20160215-gmuwsf.html

We already have the space underground in Broken Hill, Mt Painter etc. The waste depository can also handle the waste from more than one nuke reactor.

John Smith wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:29pm:

Gordon wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:46pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:36pm: Nuclear has risks. So does coal fired power generation. ohhh please. You want to try to compare the two? What happens if Lucas heights were to leaks compared to a coal powered generator? The new generation of nucs are very very safe. How safe will the be when Kim jung Ill drops a missile on one?  Or an earthquake tears one apart? And you have to store the waste for 100 000 yrs.

You don't think technology will advance enough in 100000 years, let alone 100 to deal with it?

And we don’t have to build it over a fault as I said. We would make bloody sure we don’t!

I see nukes as an interim technology until fission is working :)

Quote:

And you have to store the waste for 100 000 yrs.

Try 100 million years.

No, Booby, not that long, not even plutonium.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:57pm:

Quote: And you have to store the waste for 100 000 yrs. Try 100 million years.

The earth will have been converted to Islam by then so hopefully there's a huge nuclear disaster to wipe them all out.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:00pm:

No, Booby, not that long, not even plutonium.

Whew, we only have to store it for 100,000 years then.

Which can be done, safely, in the craton part of Australia.

Staying with coal will just keep emitting CO2.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:00pm:

No, Booby, not that long, not even plutonium.

The half-life of uranium 238 is of 4.5 billion years,
while uranium 235 has a half-life of 'only' 700 million years.

Pu-239 has a half-life of 24,100 years and Pu-241's half-life is 14.4 years.

Once it is buried safely it does not matter.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:09pm:

Which can be done, safely, in the craton part of Australia. Staying with coal will just keep emitting CO2.

Theres no need to use coal, Australia has some of the biggest gas reserves in the world with significant infrastructure in place to extract that gas. We also have huge untapped resources of solar energy. This is a no brainer , going nuclear would be plain stupid.

Gordon wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:57pm:

I see nukes as an interim technology until fission is working :)

I think you mean “fusion”

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:11pm:

Once it is buried safely it does not matter.

Jovial,
you claim to have a BSc.
Did you know that nuclear reactors make isotopes of elements
that haven't existed for billions of years?
The world is 4.5 billion years old & when first formed was very radioactive.
So much time has passed that now radioactive rocks are quite rare
& most elements have decayed into harmless isotopes.

Nuclear reactors are reversing that process
& it would take another 4.5 billion years to get back to where we were.
Surely there is a better way to make safer power?

Thorium reactors could in theory eat up radioactive elements giving them a faster decay time -
yet we've invested not one penny into them.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:17pm:

Gordon wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:57pm: I see nukes as an interim technology until fission is working :) I think you mean “fusion”

Zackly. My phone changed it.
Fusion fusion mr fusion.
50 years?

The half-life of uranium 238 is of 4.5 billion years,
while uranium 235 has a half-life of 'only' 700 million years.

Pu-239 has a half-life of 24,100 years and Pu-241's half-life is 14.4 years.

Gordon wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:19pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:17pm: Gordon wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:57pm: I see nukes as an interim technology until fission is working :) I think you mean “fusion” Zackly. My phone changed it. Fusion fusion mr fusion. 50 years?

Fusion is always another 20 to 50 years away.

I notice there is a lot of concentration on the hazards of nuclear power but no attention to the hazards of continuing to burn coal.

Booby is worried about the way the reactors work. No nuclear generator has exploded except  Chernobyl and that was due to boneheaded stupidity!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:21pm:

I notice there is a lot of concentration on the hazards of nuclear power but no attention to the hazards of continuing to burn coal. Bobby is worried about the way the reactors work. No nuclear generator has exploded except  Chernobyl and that was due to boneheaded stupidity!

Accidents happen especially when you're operating at 150 atmospheres of pressure.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:19pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:11pm: Once it is buried safely it does not matter. Jovial, you claim to have a BSc. Did you know that nuclear reactors make isotopes of elements that haven't existed for billions of years? The world is 4.5 billion years old & when first formed was very radioactive. So much time has passed that now radioactive rocks are quite rare & most elements have decayed into harmless isotopes. Nuclear reactors are reversing that process & it would take another 4.5 billion years to get back to where we were. Surely there is a better way to make safer power? Thorium reactors could in theory eat up radioactive elements giving them a faster decay time - yet we've invested not one penny into them.

Thorium is like fusion, when will the tech be available.

We must replace the coal fired generators that will shut down over the next two decades and we must reduce emissions of GHG. Nuclear is safe.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:19pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:11pm: Once it is buried safely it does not matter. Jovial, you claim to have a BSc. Did you know that nuclear reactors make isotopes of elements that haven't existed for billions of years? The world is 4.5 billion years old & when first formed was very radioactive. So much time has passed that now radioactive rocks are quite rare & most elements have decayed into harmless isotopes. Nuclear reactors are reversing that process & it would take another 4.5 billion years to get back to where we were. Surely there is a better way to make safer power? Thorium reactors could in theory eat up radioactive elements giving them a faster decay time - yet we've invested not one penny into them. Thorium is like fusion, when will the tech be available. We must replace the coal fired generators that will shut down over the next two decades and we must reduce emissions of GHG. Nuclear is safe.

The Indians & the Chinese are working on  molten salt Thorium reactors which
would be walk away safe if it all went wrong -
not like Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:24pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:21pm: I notice there is a lot of concentration on the hazards of nuclear power but no attention to the hazards of continuing to burn coal. Bobby is worried about the way the reactors work. No nuclear generator has exploded except  Chernobyl and that was due to boneheaded stupidity! Accidents happen especially when you're operating at 150 atmospheres of pressure.

So how many have actually exploded?

You say that you believe in AGW (once the non-existent ice age has passed) and if you do you know we need to reduce GHG emissions.

Renewables won’t quite cut it by itself, being basically intermittent.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:24pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:21pm: I notice there is a lot of concentration on the hazards of nuclear power but no attention to the hazards of continuing to burn coal. Bobby is worried about the way the reactors work. No nuclear generator has exploded except  Chernobyl and that was due to boneheaded stupidity! Accidents happen especially when you're operating at 150 atmospheres of pressure. So how many have actually exploded? You say that you believe in AGW (once the non-existent ice age has passed) and if you do you know we need to reduce GHG emissions. Renewables won’t quite cut it by itself, being basically intermittent.

So how many have actually exploded?

Fukushima & Chernobyl.

Fukushima was old tech and was located over a fault line in a tsunami zone. Chernobyl was old tech and was operator error.

If those two are the only ones you can name I think we can say nuclear power is safe.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:33pm:

Fukushima was old tech and was located over a fault line in a tsunami zone. Chernobyl was old tech and was operator error. If those two are the only ones you can name I think we can say nuclear power is safe.

A lot of nuclear reactors are very old now &
neutron embrittlement will cause another failure.

It's just a matter of time - it will happen.


http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0107/odette-0107.html

All generators, coal, wind, nuclear etc have a life cycle.

We cannot just continue burning coal. That is the fact nobody here has been able to argue away.

Casting doubt on my qualifications is just a sign of jealousy and is an ad hom.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:19pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:11pm: Once it is buried safely it does not matter. Jovial, you claim to have a BSc. Did you know that nuclear reactors make isotopes of elements that haven't existed for billions of years? The world is 4.5 billion years old & when first formed was very radioactive. So much time has passed that now radioactive rocks are quite rare & most elements have decayed into harmless isotopes. Nuclear reactors are reversing that process & it would take another 4.5 billion years to get back to where we were. Surely there is a better way to make safer power? Thorium reactors could in theory eat up radioactive elements giving them a faster decay time - yet we've invested not one penny into them. Thorium is like fusion, when will the tech be available. We must replace the coal fired generators that will shut down over the next two decades and we must reduce emissions of GHG. Nuclear is safe.

Thorium reactors are much further along than fusion. ::)

One huge power station has closed in Victoria, others will be closing.

We need to start with known tech and even so the time it takes means we need to start planning now.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:24pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:21pm: I notice there is a lot of concentration on the hazards of nuclear power but no attention to the hazards of continuing to burn coal. Bobby is worried about the way the reactors work. No nuclear generator has exploded except  Chernobyl and that was due to boneheaded stupidity! Accidents happen especially when you're operating at 150 atmospheres of pressure. So how many have actually exploded? You say that you believe in AGW (once the non-existent ice age has passed) and if you do you know we need to reduce GHG emissions. Renewables won’t quite cut it by itself, being basically intermittent.

You don't need an exploding reactor for there to be a problem.
Surely you know this?

So how many problems have happened?

Here is a list...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents

So 5 accidents this century, four if we discount Fukushima.

Again, I have never said nuclear is without risk, but so is burning coal to make electricity—AGW.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 11:02pm:

So 5 accidents this century, four if we discount Fukushima. Again, I have never said nuclear is without risk, but so is burning coal to make electricity—AGW.

try this

Globally, there have been at least 99 (civilian and military) recorded nuclear power plant accidents from 1952 to 2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

Mostly in old tech reactors.

And coal is not fail safe either.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 11:02pm:

So 5 accidents this century, four if we discount Fukushima. Again, I have never said nuclear is without risk, but so is burning coal to make electricity—AGW.

I didn't say in was a comprehensive list but its not bad.

It does show your claims to be wrong though.

Chernobyl and Fukashima are still ongoing problems...  aren't they.  Their impact is much wider than just the footprint of their reactors. ::)

You need to go away and have a rethink....  read more, learn more, get up to date as well... but not post science fiction.

Chernobyl and Fukushima were not the fault of the tech itself.

Modern nuclear is safe.

Burning coal is not safe either.

Here is a report on deaths caused by mining and burning coal:


Quote:

Energy accidents From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Deepwater Horizon oil spill discharges 4.9 million barrels. (2010) Rescue effort after the 2014 Soma mine disaster in Manisa, Turkey, where over 300 miners lost their lives. Energy resources bring with them great social and economic promise, providing financial growth for communities and energy services for local economies. However, the infrastructure which delivers energy services can break down in an energy accident, sometimes causing much damage, and energy fatalities can occur, and with many systems often deaths will happen even when the systems are working as intended. Historically, coal mining has been the most dangerous energy activity and the list of historical coal mining disasters is a long one. Underground mining hazards include suffocation, gas poisoning, roof collapse and gas explosions. Open cut mining hazards are principally mine wall failures and vehicle collisions. In the US alone, more than 100,000 coal miners have been killed in accidents over the past century,[1] with more than 3,200 dying in 1907 alone.[2] According to Benjamin K. Sovacool, 279 major energy accidents occurred from 1907 to 2007 and they caused 182,156 deaths with $41 billion in property damages, with these figures not including deaths from smaller accidents.[3] However, by far the greatest energy fatalities that result from energy generation by humanity, is the creation of air pollution. The most lethal of which, particulate matter, which is primarily generated from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is (counting outdoor air pollution effects only) estimated to cause 2.1 million deaths annually.[4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

And this does not cover the major problem with coal: AGW.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Chernobyl and Fukushima were not the fault of the tech itself. Modern nuclear is safe. Burning coal is not safe either.

Nuclear is not safe - it's very dangerous.

So is crossing the road.

But coal has killed more people than nuclear accidents have done—and is posing a huge problem in the shape of global warming.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Chernobyl and Fukushima were not the fault of the tech itself. Modern nuclear is safe.

another topic monk is proven to be way out of his depth ..

this is forgiven yet exposed by his own hand .

namaste

▲

At least I don’t believe in nonsense like little green men and a flat earth.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 11:21pm:

At least I don’t believe in nonsense like little green men and a flat earth.

you have a very narrow mind and simply repeat governmental narrative ..

there is nothing wrong with what you are doing yet you are exposed

as a governmental sycophant

yet fear not , it is very befitting for your limited intellect to look important

yet you are found wanting and are in lack

and so be it

namaste

▲

Government narrative? bwahahahaha!

Go back to your flat earth and other crap.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 11:27pm:

Government narrative? bwahahahaha! Go back to your flat earth and other crap.

master Light is right,
you knew nothing about:

nuclear reactor high pressures

neutron embrittlement

long half lives of isotopes

We cannot go on burning coal.

We have to replace the coal fired power stations that will close over the next two decades.

Coal is more dangerous than nuclear. Has killed more people than all the nuclear accidents.

AGW mandates that we move away from coal.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 11:34pm:

We cannot go on burning coal. We have to replace the coal fired power stations that will close over the next two decades. Coal is more dangerous than nuclear. Has killed more people than all the nuclear accidents. AGW mandates that we move away from coal.

Jovial,
How much does it cost to decommission a nuclear power

station & look after the waste for 100 million years?

How much does it cost to build a fleet of rockets so we can fly away to another planet when we have cooked this one?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 11:37pm:

How much does it cost to build a fleet of rockets so we can fly away to another planet when we have cooked this one?

Don't be a smart arse - I don't support burning of coal.
I told you that we should have been investigating Thorium.

You haven't answered my questions.



Jovial,
How much does it cost to decommission a nuclear power

station & look after the waste for 100 million years?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 11:12pm:

Here is a report on deaths caused by mining and burning coal: Quote: Energy accidents From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Deepwater Horizon oil spill discharges 4.9 million barrels. (2010) Rescue effort after the 2014 Soma mine disaster in Manisa, Turkey, where over 300 miners lost their lives. Energy resources bring with them great social and economic promise, providing financial growth for communities and energy services for local economies. However, the infrastructure which delivers energy services can break down in an energy accident, sometimes causing much damage, and energy fatalities can occur, and with many systems often deaths will happen even when the systems are working as intended. Historically, coal mining has been the most dangerous energy activity and the list of historical coal mining disasters is a long one. Underground mining hazards include suffocation, gas poisoning, roof collapse and gas explosions. Open cut mining hazards are principally mine wall failures and vehicle collisions. In the US alone, more than 100,000 coal miners have been killed in accidents over the past century,[1] with more than 3,200 dying in 1907 alone.[2] According to Benjamin K. Sovacool, 279 major energy accidents occurred from 1907 to 2007 and they caused 182,156 deaths with $41 billion in property damages, with these figures not including deaths from smaller accidents.[3] However, by far the greatest energy fatalities that result from energy generation by humanity, is the creation of air pollution. The most lethal of which, particulate matter, which is primarily generated from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is (counting outdoor air pollution effects only) estimated to cause 2.1 million deaths annually.[4][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents And this does not cover the major problem with coal: AGW.

Coal/oil/gas accidents have caused more deaths than nuclear accidents. Emissions from coal fired power stations have killed a great many more people than nuclear accidents. Burning fossil fuels causes AGW.

Need to strike a balance, not act like old spinsters seeing a mouse.

Jovial,
How much does it cost to decommission a nuclear power

station & look after the waste for 100 million years?

How much does it cost to build a huge fleet of rockets so we can head to a new planet when this one is so ravaged by AGW we can no longer live here?

I hear:

Ooh, nukular {sucks teeth} dangerous! (Safer than fossil fuel mining and burning)

Costs $$$ to build, decommission, store. What will it cost to act against AGW in 50 years time?

There is a balance of risks.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 11:40pm:

Coal/oil/gas accidents have caused more deaths than nuclear accidents. Emissions from coal fired power stations have killed a great many more people than nuclear accidents.

Of course they have, coal has been used for thousands of years on a worldwide basis, gas for 200 years and oil for 100 years. Nuclear power plants have been around 70 years and most countries dont have them with a tiny fraction of the worlds power supplied by these. 

I meant in a similar time frame.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

I meant in a similar time frame.

Show this. I challenge your claim. Provide death statistics.

Quote:

Background: Air pollution is known to cause respiratory disease. Unlike motor vehicle sources, fuel-fired power plants are stationary. Objective: Using hospitalization data, we examined whether living near a fuel-fired power plant increases the likelihood of hospitalization for respiratory disease. Methods: Rates of hospitalization for asthma, acute respiratory infection (ARI), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were estimated using hospitalization data for 1993–2008 from New York State in relation to data for residences near fuel-fired power plants. We also explored data for residential proximity to hazardous waste sites. Results: After adjusting for age, sex, race, median household income, and rural/urban residence, there were significant 11%, 15%, and 17% increases in estimated rates of hospitalization for asthma, ARI, and COPD, respectively, among individuals > 10 years of age living in a ZIP code containing a fuel-fired power plant compared with one that had no power plant. Living in a ZIP code with a fuel-fired power plant was not significantly associated with hospitalization for asthma or ARI among children < 10 years of age. Living in a ZIP code with a hazardous waste site was associated with hospitalization for all outcomes in both age groups, and joint effect estimates were approximately additive for living in a ZIP code that contained a fuel-fired power plant and a hazardous waste site. Conclusions: Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that exposure to air pollution from fuel-fired power plants and volatile compounds coming from hazardous waste sites increases the risk of hospitalization for respiratory diseases.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385425/

Quote:

Summary In addition to the environmental and human health harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions, coal-fired power plants emit massive amounts of toxic air pollutants that result in significant numbers of deaths and disease. We estimate that between roughly 6000 and 10,700 annual deaths from heart ailments, respiratory disease and lung cancer can be attributed to the 88 coalfired power plants and companies receiving public international financing. This range of estimated mortality reflects different assumptions regarding use of air pollution control technologies in plants for which this information was not obtainable. Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is also associated with other health outcomes, including infant deaths, asthma and other lung diseases. Estimates of the number of people experiencing these additional health outcomes were not made in this study, as the necessary data from the countries where the power plants are located were not available. This suggests that the deaths estimated here represent only a portion of a larger overall health burden related to air pollution from these power plants.

https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/9553_coal-plants-health-impacts.pdf

N0 one here wants coal you nincompoop. Wake up. You are arguing a non existent premise you silly old duffer.

Of course, we could ignore nuclear and go all out on renewables. Would need storage and a multiplicity of sources: wind, solar, geothermal, tide, wave etc.

Still need baseload for industry. Find it hard to think we can provide continual power without some non–intermittent source and the only one that will not cause GHG emissions is nuclear.

rhino wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 12:21am:

N0 one here wants coal you nincompoop. Wake up. You are arguing a non existent premise you silly old duffer.

BTW nincumpoop you misspelled nincumpoop.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Screen-Shot-2017-07-10-at-11.15.50.png

Investment in fossil fuels has peaked. Nuclear and renewables are the future.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/seven-charts-show-why-the-iea-thinks-coal-investment-has-already-peaked

I believe a mix of renewables and nuclear presents the path forward for the next 30–50 years. Need nuclear as a GHG emissions free non–intermittent power source and baseload power supplier to industry.

Rooftop solar and small wind generators to supply decentralised power.

Storage will also be necessary even if only to allow phased load shedding when our gimcrack privatised power networks fail because a brisk breeze is blowing.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:31am:

rhino wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 12:21am: N0 one here wants coal you nincompoop. Wake up. You are arguing a non existent premise you silly old duffer. BTW nincumpoop you misspelled nincumpoop.

Quote:

nincompoop ˈnɪŋkəmpuːp/ noun noun: nincompoop; plural noun: nincompoops     a foolish or stupid person.

Gordon wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:29pm: Gordon wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:46pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:36pm: Nuclear has risks. So does coal fired power generation. ohhh please. You want to try to compare the two? What happens if Lucas heights were to leaks compared to a coal powered generator? The new generation of nucs are very very safe. How safe will the be when Kim jung Ill drops a missile on one?  Or an earthquake tears one apart? And you have to store the waste for 100 000 yrs. You don't think technology will advance enough in 100000 years, let alone 100 to deal with it?

technology advances for everyone. And no, I don't believe we'll find any technology to stop an earthquake, even in 100000 yrs.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:33pm:

Fukushima was old tech and was located over a fault line in a tsunami zone. Chernobyl was old tech and was operator error. If those two are the only ones you can name I think we can say nuclear power is safe.

and one day tomorrows reactor will be old or the operators will make an error. Nothing will make them safe. Only safer.

Same with coal. Several coal fired generators will be switched off over the next two decades. What will replace them? Doubt it will be coal.

Coal has caused FAR more deaths than nuclear energy has since the 1950s. FAR more.

Poll added.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:01am:

Same with coal. Several coal fired generators will be switched off over the next two decades. What will replace them? Doubt it will be coal. Coal has caused FAR more deaths than nuclear energy has since the 1950s. FAR more.

who here has argued for coal? you keep using coal as your excuse, but I haven't seen one person suggest we go the route of coal.

I have argued for a MIX of renewables and nuclear. Try reading with your eyes open.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:42am:

Poll added.

Really?
You've hidden the poll results?
Really?

NINCOMPOOP!!!!!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

I have argued for a MIX of renewables and nuclear. Try reading with your eyes open.

you didn't answer the question, who is arguing for coal?

Bigole.

Ok I'll say we could use coal...  there is a better chance of carbon capture technology working than fusion any time soon.

We eventually will have to face an Ice Age and in those times we will need a much different mix of power sources.
Studies show that the Ice Age when it comes will come on quickly, if we don't have a plan B then we will get wiped out, most certainly most of us will be.  We will need to adapt to any climate changes.  We will need a new base load power source.  One that can provide power through any environmental changes we need to address.  One where we do not produce toxic waste that will be with us for millenia.

Grendel wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 12:13pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 10:42am: Poll added. Really? You've hidden the poll results? Really? NINCOMPOOP!!!!!

Yes, I usually do. Results will be shown in one week. This way we won’t get a succession of socks voting to get their desired result.

Oh dear! When do you think an Ice Age will come, roach?

I am going for: 80,000 years.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 12:25pm:

Oh dear! When do you think an Ice Age will come, roach? I am going for: 80,000 years.

Actually we are overdue.  ;)

Hey maybe that AGW you worry so much about is delaying the inevitable. :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 12:23pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 12:13pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 10:42am: Poll added. Really? You've hidden the poll results? Really? NINCOMPOOP!!!!! Yes, I usually do. Results will be shown in one week. This way we won’t get a succession of socks voting to get their desired result.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Really.
I've never done it.
Have you??????
Only idiots do such things.
I don't even have a sock?
How about you? ;D

Poll Poll where is the poll?
Honestly the topic had disappeared I had to go look for it and still there is no poll result.

Jovial - get an education - Thorium is the answer not Uranium.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqYP6f66Mw



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6mhw-CNxaE

Jovial has had a day to get himself educated -

what did you find out?

Finally a poll result.
hey Monk!  you be 1 ::)

Grendel wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:49pm:

Finally a poll result. hey Monk!  you be 1 ::)

The poll was idiotic because Thorium was left out of the debate.

Monk leaves lots of things out of the debate, especially stuff he has no answer for.

http://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/flannery_scr.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUvwwQgehAk


12 Most Radioactive Places on Earth

Jovial ignored the above video.

shame

We should bring all radioactive waste here to store in the desert, on or in the craton.

Stuff stupid videos.

We should also (SA at least) develop nuclear power to backstop renewables.

Else we will end up cooking ourselves.

LOL
Have you ever known anyone with such a one-track mind Bobby?
Honestly doesn't matter what anyone says or proves.

Grendel wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 2:47pm:

LOL Have you ever known anyone with such a one-track mind Bobby? Honestly doesn't matter what anyone says or proves.

Jovial is forgiven

namaste

Instead of “forgiving” me for non-existent offences how about you apologise to me for all your ad homs and your trolling of me, including hinting at the bestiality taunt of IQ? Hmmm?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 7:10pm:

Instead of “forgiving” me for non-existent offences how about you apologise to me for all your ad homs and your trolling of me, including hinting at the bestiality taunt of IQ? Hmmm?

I am guilty of nothing.
Those are all trumped up charges.

However you have ignored the destruction of the environment in the video above.

forgiven again

namaste

Jovial Twit
Troll

Just TWO adhoms.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 7:15pm:

Jovial Twit Troll Just TWO adhoms.

Pot meet Kettle. ;)

Jovial,
watch the video & then comment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUvwwQgehAk


12 Most Radioactive Places on Earth

Go away with your stupid videos.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 8:17pm:

Go away with your stupid videos.

Jovial,
It's not a stupid video &
you have no way of backing that up without seeing it.
Your attacks of things you haven't even seen are a form of psychosis -
you need professional help.

The video shows - east or west - any country -
anywhere that nuclear materials are used, leaves behind
impossible radioactive messes to clean up -
environments ruined forever - & I mean forever -
even 100 million years from now those places will
be unsafe to go anywhere near -
& by that time will have polluted a lot more of the environment too.

It's criminal.

It is garbage.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 9:07pm:

It is garbage.

You don't understand.
God help us.

Nuclear alarmist garbage.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 10:45pm:

Nuclear alarmist garbage.

watch the video & then comment

How much money have you given to Dubyne?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 11:14pm:

How much money have you given to Dubyne?

That makes a nice change. Usually you accuse people of being in the pay of.... ;)

The greener nuclear alternative
By Tim Dean

If the Fukushima nuclear reactors were based on thorium instead of uranium, the current nuclear crisis in Japan right now wouldn’t be happening.

Thorium is a superior nuclear fuel to uranium in almost every conceivable way, yet we hear almost nothing about it in the contemporary hubbub about nuclear power. If there is such a thing as green nuclear power, thorium is it.

For one, a thorium-powered nuclear reactor can never undergo a meltdown. It just can’t. This is because thorium is slightly lighter than uranium and is not fissile – meaning you can pack as much of the stuff together as you want and it won’t undergo a runaway chain reaction.

Instead, you need to inject a smidge of energy into a thorium reactor to kick it off. Some designs use uranium or plutonium as a seed. An even safer design uses a particle beam to trigger the reaction. If there’s a problem, you switch off the beam, and the reactor cools down of its own accord. The meltdown is averted by simply doing nothing.

That’s a fundamental about-face compared to the current uranium reactors, where the normal operating state requires constant intervention to actively prevent a meltdown.

Thorium is also thoroughly useless for making nuclear weapons. That was once seen as a barrier to its adoption for electricity generation because, after all, the nuclear power industry was originally an offshoot of the nuclear weapons industry. Uranium was chosen as the fuel of choice precisely because its by-products, like plutonium-239, could be made into atomic bombs.

Another consequence of thorium being lighter than uranium is it produces far less of the toxic by-products that constitute a large proportion of the high-level radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants.

Where a uranium-powered reactor creates tonnes of waste over its lifetime that remain toxic for 10,000 years, a thorium-powered reactor produces a fraction of that waste, and what is produced is only toxic for around 500 years. Clearly, building a facility to last 500 years is a challenging prospect, but it sure beats trying to build one to remain safe for ten millennia.

But wait, there’s more.

Thorium doesn’t only produce less waste, it can be used to consume existing waste. Stick in some of your old reactor waste by-products, or even unwanted weapons-grade material, and a thorium reactor will burn it up, leaving a far less unsavoury residue.

Thorium itself is also highly abundant, far more so than uranium. In fact, Australia has some of the largest reserves of thorium to be found anywhere in the world. Extracting it from the ground is simplicity itself compared to uranium, and far softer on the environment.

It also doesn’t need enrichment; the vast bulk of uranium (around 99.3 per cent) pulled from the ground is unsuitable for a nuclear reactor, so it needs to be spun in centrifuges to extract the minute amounts of useful fissile uranium-235 material from the relatively idle uranium-238.Thorium, on the other hand, can be used straight out of the ground, meaning it can generate around 40 times more energy per tonne mined compared to uranium.

I could go on.

But, in short, thorium is easy to get at, can generate our much-needed baseload power without the risk of a meltdown, without the weapons proliferation risks of uranium, it produces far less waste, it consumes existing waste, and there are several reactor designs that have already been tested and shown to work.

Now, I’m not going to say that thorium is the only answer to our energy needs. It certainly still has its drawbacks – 500 years is still a long time to stand guard over your garbage – but it could provide that all-important stop-gap between existing dirty coal power and the future sustainable energy technologies, or even the holy grail, nuclear fusion.

India has already built a number of experimental reactors, and is investing heavily in the technology. There’s nothing except political will stopping Australia from doing the same. If the technology works, it could come into high demand from around the world, and Australia could doubly do its part in reducing carbon emissions by generating thorium nuclear power at home, and helping spread the technology abroad. We might even make a buck in the process, offsetting the R&D and initial capital costs.

If this country, and others around the world, are going to engage in a debate about nuclear power, we owe it to ourselves to look beyond the relatively primitive 20th century technologies that stir so much ire in the public, and look towards safer, more sophisticated 21st century technologies. Like thorium nuclear power.

You put any kind of fission reactor on a tectonic faultline right on the coast in a tsunami prone area you will have disaster.

I don’t mind thorium reactors—when one is available. Same with fusion.

We need to get rid of coal. Renewables are intermittent, so back up with nuclear.

Can start small, modular reactors etc.

But we have to stop burning coal and gas.

Not yet we don't.... :D :D :D :D :D

YOU need to stop being an Alarmist... yesterday....

I am not an alarmist. But I can see what is happening and what can be done about it.

Many, like Lees know AGW is warming the world but won’t admit it to himself because acting on AGW means change and some people fear change more than anything.

All the denialism, all the false science/false statements etc (JoNova/David Dubyne etc) will do is delay action until the action is less sure of results, will need to be more drastic and WAY more expensive. Then all the deniers will be loudest in denouncing lack of action by governments etc.

I say: we know there is a problem. We need to marshall resources to study it, measure the rate of change and work out where problems will be most acute early on.

Funny thing is, if renewable energy had been encouraged/mandated a lot more the problem would be a lot less acute and cheaper. Acting on AGW will just result in clean air, clean skies, a lot less disease from burning coal etc. Seems like a good thing to me.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 4^th, 2017 at 7:10pm:

Many, like Lees know AGW is warming the world but won’t admit it to himself because acting on AGW means change and some people fear change more than anything.

Pretending to speak for others is a sure sign you have lost the plot.

Grendel wrote on Aug 4^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:

The greener nuclear alternative By Tim Dean If the Fukushima nuclear reactors were based on thorium instead of uranium, the current nuclear crisis in Japan right now wouldn’t be happening. Thorium is a superior nuclear fuel to uranium in almost every conceivable way, yet we hear almost nothing about it in the contemporary hubbub about nuclear power. If there is such a thing as green nuclear power, thorium is it. For one, a thorium-powered nuclear reactor can never undergo a meltdown. It just can’t. This is because thorium is slightly lighter than uranium and is not fissile – meaning you can pack as much of the stuff together as you want and it won’t undergo a runaway chain reaction. Instead, you need to inject a smidge of energy into a thorium reactor to kick it off. Some designs use uranium or plutonium as a seed. An even safer design uses a particle beam to trigger the reaction. If there’s a problem, you switch off the beam, and the reactor cools down of its own accord. The meltdown is averted by simply doing nothing. That’s a fundamental about-face compared to the current uranium reactors, where the normal operating state requires constant intervention to actively prevent a meltdown. Thorium is also thoroughly useless for making nuclear weapons. That was once seen as a barrier to its adoption for electricity generation because, after all, the nuclear power industry was originally an offshoot of the nuclear weapons industry. Uranium was chosen as the fuel of choice precisely because its by-products, like plutonium-239, could be made into atomic bombs. Another consequence of thorium being lighter than uranium is it produces far less of the toxic by-products that constitute a large proportion of the high-level radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants. Where a uranium-powered reactor creates tonnes of waste over its lifetime that remain toxic for 10,000 years, a thorium-powered reactor produces a fraction of that waste, and what is produced is only toxic for around 500 years. Clearly, building a facility to last 500 years is a challenging prospect, but it sure beats trying to build one to remain safe for ten millennia. But wait, there’s more. Thorium doesn’t only produce less waste, it can be used to consume existing waste. Stick in some of your old reactor waste by-products, or even unwanted weapons-grade material, and a thorium reactor will burn it up, leaving a far less unsavoury residue. Thorium itself is also highly abundant, far more so than uranium. In fact, Australia has some of the largest reserves of thorium to be found anywhere in the world. Extracting it from the ground is simplicity itself compared to uranium, and far softer on the environment. It also doesn’t need enrichment; the vast bulk of uranium (around 99.3 per cent) pulled from the ground is unsuitable for a nuclear reactor, so it needs to be spun in centrifuges to extract the minute amounts of useful fissile uranium-235 material from the relatively idle uranium-238.Thorium, on the other hand, can be used straight out of the ground, meaning it can generate around 40 times more energy per tonne mined compared to uranium. I could go on. But, in short, thorium is easy to get at, can generate our much-needed baseload power without the risk of a meltdown, without the weapons proliferation risks of uranium, it produces far less waste, it consumes existing waste, and there are several reactor designs that have already been tested and shown to work. Now, I’m not going to say that thorium is the only answer to our energy needs. It certainly still has its drawbacks – 500 years is still a long time to stand guard over your garbage – but it could provide that all-important stop-gap between existing dirty coal power and the future sustainable energy technologies, or even the holy grail, nuclear fusion. India has already built a number of experimental reactors, and is investing heavily in the technology. There’s nothing except political will stopping Australia from doing the same. If the technology works, it could come into high demand from around the world, and Australia could doubly do its part in reducing carbon emissions by generating thorium nuclear power at home, and helping spread the technology abroad. We might even make a buck in the process, offsetting the R&D and initial capital costs. If this country, and others around the world, are going to engage in a debate about nuclear power, we owe it to ourselves to look beyond the relatively primitive 20th century technologies that stir so much ire in the public, and look towards safer, more sophisticated 21st century technologies. Like thorium nuclear power.

Good post - I wish that Jovial would read it.

Jovial - get an education - Thorium is the answer not Uranium.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqYP6f66Mw



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6mhw-CNxaE

We can’t wait for thorium to be developed.

It certainly should be in the mix in a geologically stable continent.
An opportunity foregone.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 5^th, 2017 at 9:41am:

We can’t wait for thorium to be developed.

Our Govt. will never develop it -
they are more worried about poofter rights.
The whole lot of them should be sacked by the GG.

OUR GOVERNMENT should be backing all sorts of R&D in energy production.

We could be leading the world, except they are myopic.
Both major parties lack vision and talent.

Marriage equality is something that could be enabled in 5 minutes, just turdfull doesn’t have the guts. Energy security, the inclusion of nuclear plus renewables is a longer term thing. No clash.

In the meantime, Hazelwood has closed and nothing is being done to replace it. Brown coal is very dirty, lots of CO2 and other emissions per unit of electricity.

I am not proposing nuclear to replace Hazelwood in the short term. I am proposing nuclear as a part of the mix of future energy supply.

In response I got the usual NIMBY crap.

Now that that is past, maybe a more mature and informed debate can take place?

I don’t think geothermal is going to have much of a place in our energy mix. In Queensland much of the ground rock above the hot rocks is fractured, the steam would just dissipate before it got to the surface. The Cooper Basin is more promising but would require a lot of investment. So scratch geothermal.

So renewable energy is solar and wind. Don’t think wave or tide has seen much devopment or success in trials.

So coal or nuclear is needed. Coal is dirtier than nuclear and causes more deaths and then there is the CO2 emitted. Sequestration and burial of CO2 is too expensive so that just leaves nuclear.

Will we achieve the 2°C limit to temperature increases? Probably not. That means: scratch corn, wheat and rice as the source of 20–30% of calories and protein.

Oh, but we can’t have nuclear! Teh radioactivity! Teh waste! Teh money to build run and dispose of nuclear generators. Claims we should wait for teh thorium is just another way of saying: no nuclear energy!

Welcome to a world without wheat!

Beef prices in the US are soaring due to droughts in Texas and California, picture that happening worldwide. No wheat, no beef. What a wonderful life we are bequeathing our kids and grandkids!

dear Jovial,
It is a sign that our politicians have had no vision that
we don't have Thorium power by now.
India & China have over 1000 scientists working on it.

As I said they are more worried about poofters than our future energy needs.

Thorium is just an excuse not to do anything.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 6^th, 2017 at 9:26am:

Thorium is just an excuse not to do anything.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know
that the Yanks already had a Thorium reactor producing power in the 1960s.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

The MSRE reactor, built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, operated critical for roughly 15,000 hours from 1965 to 1969.

Sounds like an experiment that did not give a satisfactory result.

We should start now building a uranium fuelled generator. No time for games.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 6^th, 2017 at 10:16am:

Sounds like an experiment that did not give a satisfactory result. We should start now building a uranium fuelled generator. No time for games.

Why when a few more years of research will make Uranium obsolete & too dangerous in comparison to Thorium -
walk away safe!

Nah, pie in the sky.

Anyway, a lot of planning and preparation can be made now and the type of reactor chosen later. Stick with the tried and true techniques.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 5^th, 2017 at 9:41am:

We can’t wait for thorium to be developed.

Thorium is a naturally occurring element.
Australia has lots of it.
It doesn't need developing.
Oh Bsc Geology... :D :D :D

and he wants to be a board mod here lol

I think you are right Bobby, he doesn't read anything.
he certainly doesn't learn anything, he keeps reposting the same shyte post after post.
He craps on stuff he's clueless about and regurgitates stuff he doesn't even understand properly.
he's hardly worth the effort. ::) ::) ::)

Hazelwood has been turned off.

Several other coal fired power stations will be turned off over the next couple of decades.

Replacing them is. . . . . . . ????

Let us replace coal generation with at least some nuclear to provide non–intermittent power.

If thorium is developed and proven and in use overseas—use thorium.

If not, use uranium.

Whatever, must reduce carbon emissions.

nah....  you are hardly an environmentalist.

AGW is the main environmental threat we face.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2017 at 11:27am:

AGW is the main environmental threat we face.

Then we don't have much of a problem.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2017 at 11:19am:

Hazelwood has been turned off. Several other coal fired power stations will be turned off over the next couple of decades. Replacing them is. . . . . . . ???? Let us replace coal generation with at least some nuclear to provide non–intermittent power. If thorium is developed and proven and in use overseas—use thorium. If not, use uranium. Whatever, must reduce carbon emissions.

So you think a uranium reactor running at 70 atmospheres of pressure
is a good thing to have?

Better than a coal fired generator Booby. We have to stop emitting CO2.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 5:02pm:

Better than a coal fired generator Booby. We have to stop emitting CO2.

Jovial,
70 atmospheres of pressure is very dangerous.

You know something -
I never heard about those extreme pressures until I did a bit of study on it.
It's not something they tell you on TV shows.

Everyone of those nuclear reactors is like a bomb ready to explode.
It's a pressure cooker - that's cooking up Uranium fuel rods that
have to be expertly controlled so that the whole thing
doesn't melt down & explode.

If the cooling fails as at Chernobyl & Fukushima - there's a meltdown
& a gigantic explosion from all that pressure sends
radioactive clouds of material all around the Earth.

Uranium reactors should never have been made after Thorium was proven by 1969 in the USA.

Thorium is a proven technology & it's safe -
no pressure - it's walk away safe even if the worst happens.

You do know that high pressure is steam not radioactives?

I know you are a gullible fool and make allowances but still that is dumb, Booby.

BTW, do you believe in this Nibiru nonsense as well as the ice age nonsense?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 5:27pm:

You do know that high pressure is steam not radioactives? I know you are a gullible fool and make allowances but still that is dumb, Booby. BTW, do you believe in this Nibiru nonsense as well as the ice age nonsense?

Jovial - the high pressure is right against the Uranium fuel rods.

Doubt that.

Do you believe the Niburu nonsense as well as the ice age nonsense?

HM have you given the snake oil salesman Dubyne, Booby?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

Doubt that.

Just look it up.
You're hopeless.

Do you believe the Niburu nonsense?

HM have you given to Dubyne?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 7:52pm:

Do you believe the Niburu nonsense? HM have you given to Dubyne?

Troll

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 5:02pm:

Better than a coal fired generator Booby. We have to stop emitting CO2.

Jovial,
70 atmospheres of pressure is very dangerous.

You know something -
I never heard about those extreme pressures until I did a bit of study on it.
It's not something they tell you on TV shows.

Everyone of those nuclear reactors is like a bomb ready to explode.
It's a pressure cooker - that's cooking up Uranium fuel rods that
have to be expertly controlled so that the whole thing
doesn't melt down & explode.

If the cooling fails as at Chernobyl & Fukushima - there's a meltdown
& a gigantic explosion from all that pressure sends
radioactive clouds of material all around the Earth.

Uranium reactors should never have been made after Thorium was proven by 1969 in the USA.

Thorium is a proven technology & it's safe -
no pressure - it's walk away safe even if the worst happens.

It isn’t, stop acting like a 95 yo virgin on her wedding night.

The high pressure is in the steam turbine not the bloody reactor.

We need to cut out CO2 emissions, even you agree to that despite your idiotic ice age crap.

We could start with a modular reactor that would let us learn and switch to thorium when and if that becomes possible.

Jovial,
read if you can?


Today, reactors derived from designs originally developed for propelling submarines and large naval ships generate about 85% of the world's nuclear electricity. The main design is the pressurised water reactor (PWR) which has water at over 300°C under pressure in its primary cooling/heat transfer circuit, and generates steam in a secondary circuit. The less numerous boiling water reactor (BWR) makes steam in the primary circuit above the reactor core, at similar temperatures and pressure. Both types use water as both coolant and moderator, to slow neutrons. Since water normally boils at 100°C, they have robust steel pressure vessels or tubes to enable the higher operating temperature. (Another type uses heavy water, with deuterium atoms, as moderator. Hence the term ‘light water’ is used to differentiate.)


http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

OK, finally you post something worth reading. I will read your link.

In the meantime:

HM have you paid to that lying charlatan Dubyne?

Do you believe the Niburu nonsense as well as the ice age nonsense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor

Coolant

Light water is used as the primary coolant in a PWR. Water enters through the bottom of the reactor's core at about 548 K (275 °C; 527 °F) and is heated as it flows upwards through the reactor core to a temperature of about 588 K (315 °C; 599 °F). The water remains liquid despite the high temperature due to the high pressure in the primary coolant loop, usually around 155 bar (15.5 MPa 153 atm, 2,250 psi). In water, the critical point occurs at around 647 K (374 °C; 705 °F) and 22.064 MPa (3200 psi or 218 atm).[7]

So?

Apart from Chernobyl and Fukushima, both old tech, both due to special circumstances, there has hardly been any trouble from nuclear energy.

It has a place in our energy mix.

Since you won’t answer my questions I assume you have given snake oil salesman Dubyne a fair bit of your money. Crazy!

Jovial is like an empty kettle that makes the most noise.

He didn't even know that nuclear reactors work at high pressure
yet he started a thread on nuclear power.

What else doesn't he know?

Neutron embrittlement?