Australian Politics Forum

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #120 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 7:58am

Adam wrote on Sep 21^st, 2010 at 9:57am:

What levels of radiation have been released from modern reactors, and how does that compare to other sources of radiation to which we are exposed?

To save me the trouble of finding the data, here is a Scientific American article. It seems that Coal fired power stations produce 100 times the levels of radiation compared to modern nuclear power stations.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-th...

I'd suggest that exposure from long haul flights or visits to the mountains is even more hazardous than this.

At some stage I provided a list of relative risks.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #121 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 11:57am

The average non-smoking Australian is exposed to 2 mSv each year.

Measurements and modelling of Australian aircrew exposures have indicated an additional dose from commercial airflight of around 1.8 mSv per year for those involved in domestic routes, and around 4 mSv per year for those involved in international flight routes.

If you're a smoker, add another 13mSv per year.

Living within 1.6 km of a coal fired Power Station (on average) increases your exposure by 0.02mSv.

Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Equitist Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9632 NSW	Re: NUCLEAR POWER Reply #122 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:00pm muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 11:57am: Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year. Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!?
Back to top	Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer! IP Logged

qikvtec Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1846 Queensland	Re: NUCLEAR POWER Reply #123 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:11pm Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:00pm: muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 11:57am: Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year. Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!? Which doesn't happen too frequently.
Back to top	Politicians and Nappies need to be changed often and for the same reason. One trouble with political jokes is that they often get elected. Alan Joyce for PM IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #124 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:28pm

qikvtec wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:11pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:00pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 11:57am:

Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year.

Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!?

Which doesn't happen too frequently.

True, but the risk is increasing all the time - as the operators of many nuke plants constructed decades ago continue to tempt fate, by operating them well beyond their originally-engineered lifespan...

Chernobyl was conveniently blamed on the dastardly 'Commies' but the next BIG KABOOM will decimate the nuke industry - along with the regional neighbourhood - no matter where it occurs...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

qikvtec

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1846
Queensland

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #125 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 1:26pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:28pm:

qikvtec wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:11pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:00pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 11:57am:

Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year.

Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!?

Which doesn't happen too frequently.

True, but the risk is increasing all the time - as the operators of many nuke plants constructed decades ago continue to tempt fate, by operating them well beyond their originally-engineered lifespan...

Chernobyl was conveniently blamed on the dastardly 'Commies' but the next BIG KABOOM will decimate the nuke industry - along with the regional neighbourhood - no matter where it occurs...

What's the alternative?

Back to top

Politicians and Nappies need to be changed often and for the same reason.

One trouble with political jokes is that they often get elected.

Alan Joyce for PM

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #126 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 1:34pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:00pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 11:57am:

Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year.

Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!?

You mean if somebody bombed the installation?

Quote:

True, but the risk is increasing all the time - as the operators of many nuke plants constructed decades ago continue to tempt fate, by operating them well beyond their originally-engineered lifespan...

All industrial plants can be extended beyond their projected lifetime - not just nuclear plants, and it doesn't imply any additional risk as long as statutory maintenance and inspections are carried out. The lifetime of an industrial plant is determined by economic factors rather than anything else.

Modern nuclear plants were designed to fail-safe, unlike Chernobyl. It wasn't so much the Commies that were to blame as the design of the reactor. Unfortunately this design of reactor is still in operation at Smolensk and Leningrad (3 Units from memory), but a number of safety features have been added to prevent a recurrence of the Chernobyl disaster. Nevertheless, I don't trust the design.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 1^st, 2010 at 1:46pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #127 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 1:53pm

qikvtec wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 1:26pm:

What's the alternative?

There are plenty of alternatives, but none of them are as cost effective. Uranium based nuclear fission reactors will fill a medium term gap. Eventually (in around 100 years) we'll run out of ore. During that period we can develop other technologies such as solar and geothermal energy.

Looking at it from an Australian point of view, it doesn't matter if we decide to export the Uranium rather than use it for power generation. It's a global issue. As long as we mine it, we're contributing to the solution.

The viable medium term solutions for Australia are Solar thermal and geothermal, and possibly off-shore based wind generation in the Bass Strait. Other technologies such as combined cycle gas generation will also fill a medium term gap, although it's not carbon neutral.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #128 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:00pm

There is a very good reason why nuclear risks are excluded from most insurance policies - and that is because the consequences of a single nuclear accident are potentially so grave and extensive as to bankrupt the insurers along with a whole region, country and industry...

Even if insurers would underwrite nuclear risk, the premiums would be prohibitive!

Think about it...the costs of building a nuke plant anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term!

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #129 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:05pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:00pm:

Think about it...the costs of building a nuke plant anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term!

The costs of any engineering in Australia is prohibitive. That's why most technology is imported, and a lot of plant is manufactured in China and assembled in Australia.

Think about it...the costs of building more coal fired power stations anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term!

Nuclear risks ? - think bombs, not power plants.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:11pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #130 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:08pm

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:05pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:00pm:

Think about it...the costs of building a nuke plant anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term!

Think about it...the costs of building more coal fired power stations anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term!

LOL...but you know I am correct - and that a many more new coal-fired power stations are not really on the agenda...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

aussiefree2ride

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3538

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #131 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:12pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:08pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:05pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:00pm:

Think about it...the costs of building a nuke plant anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term!

Think about it...the costs of building more coal fired power stations anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term!

LOL...but you know I am correct - and that a many more new coal-fired power stations are not really on the agenda...

So, what are you proposing to replace and upgrade our coal fired power stations with after you`ve killed off our coal industry, one of our major incomes?

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #132 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:12pm

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 1:34pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 12:00pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 11:57am:

Living within 1.6km of a Nuclear Power Station increases your exposure by about 1/100 of that, or 0.0002mSv/year.

Presumably, that is only in the absence of a big KABOOM!?

You mean if somebody bombed the installation?

Quote:

True, but the risk is increasing all the time - as the operators of many nuke plants constructed decades ago continue to tempt fate, by operating them well beyond their originally-engineered lifespan...

All industrial plants can be extended beyond their projected lifetime - not just nuclear plants, and it doesn't imply any additional risk as long as statutory maintenance and inspections are carried out. The lifetime of an industrial plant is determined by economic factors rather than anything else.

Modern nuclear plants were designed to fail-safe, unlike Chernobyl. It wasn't so much the Commies that were to blame as the design of the reactor. Unfortunately this design of reactor is still in operation at Smolensk and Leningrad (3 Units from memory), but a number of safety features have been added to prevent a recurrence of the Chernobyl disaster. Nevertheless, I don't trust the design.

I don't trust the concept - especially when human nature is involved - nuclear forces are simply are too large and unpredictable to risk unleashing! Period.

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #133 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:15pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:08pm:

LOL...but you know I am correct - and that a many more new coal-fired power stations are not really on the agenda...

If you're talking costs, most of the solutions will come at a high price.

We can't do it in one hit with Solar or all the renewable technology put together. - not in the time we have. It would be better, sure, but we need to have either nuclear or combined cycle - probably both to fill a stop gap.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #134 - Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:16pm

aussiefree2ride wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:12pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:08pm:

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:05pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2010 at 2:00pm:

Think about it...the costs of building a nuke plant anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term!

Think about it...the costs of building more coal fired power stations anywhere in Oz would be enormous - and the potential monetary, social and environmental costs to the nation are simply too high over the long-term!

LOL...but you know I am correct - and that a many more new coal-fired power stations are not really on the agenda...

So, what are you proposing to replace and upgrade our coal fired power stations with after you`ve killed off our coal industry, one of our major incomes?

I suggest that you check out the plans within the industry itself - some coal plants are already being retrofitted to gas (another fossil fuel that occurs in Oz)...

Meantime, there is much impetus for investment in renewables...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged