Geothermal is the best alternative, as solar and wind are not cheap, and they cannot supply energy twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, but these three are all safe, clean, no carbon footprint, viable and extant technologies.

No solar, geothermal or wind station has ever melted down, destroying a huge part of the Earth for thousands of years.
Geothermal is cheaper in the long run, than nuclear power, and we can do it almost anywhere now, especially if you factor in the cost of a nuclear incident in a residential area, and the cleanup of the contaminated nuclear site when it is too old. If the government were to invest our carbon tax in supplying solar panels, to every house in Australia that does not have them yet, then there would be no problem, as the residents would simply continue to pay the same electricity prices, until the loan was repaid, and then they would have no more electricity bills. The government would get it's carbon tax back again, thus making it the cheapest solution for everyone in the long run, as it would cost everyone involved nothing, and the residents would then get an income for their oversupply, once it is paid off. Is it really sensible to trust in the promises of the nuclear industry that it is safe, when this is the same argument, from the same people, that led to the construction of Fukushima. Anyway to my question, do you think that the Australian government would be well advised to immediately pay for the installation of solar power panels to the roof of every house in this country?

user_image
I am VERY anti nuclear. These nuclear power stations cost MILLIONS of dollars to build and the long term pollution is TERRIBLE when we have to store the waste. if the government invested these same millions of dollars by putting solar panels on EVERY building in the country, plus setting up larger solar 'stations' in remote areas like the Simpson Desert, along with using geothermal whenever possible, I am sure we could produce enough base load power for the entire country.
Jennifer Millar · 2 years ago
user_image
All power stations cost millions to build. When full lifecycyle costs, for all sources, are taken into account, nuclear is not too expensive. Pollution is when waste is not contained. If it is contained it is not waste. Also, as mentioned before GenIV (a proven reactor technology) can use all of that existing waste as fuel, and since it has a closed fuel loop results in a much lower volume of eventual waste, which can be vitrified and stored on site and decays to background levels within 300 years. Solar panels on every roof and in the desert (where there is no existing grid of infrastructure) will not provide baseload power, it is still too intermittent. Yes renewables should be part of the solution, but on their own they are not sufficient, and rather than wait for some silver bullet we don't know is coming, we should be building nuclear to rapidly decarbonise our energy supply.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Apologies, what I meant to say was "If it is contained it is not pollution", it is obviously still waste. Waste which is fuel for GenIV reactors.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
"In terms of worldwide mortality rates, nuclear is scary, but it kills fewer people per watt of power than coal, oil, and even solar." "Everyone loves the idea that we could just install more efficient light bulbs and live off windmills and solar panels, but that’s a dangerous fantasy, one that makes us blind to the hard choices we face.", "Indeed the film alleges that the fossil fuel industry loves solar and wind because it knows they will never pose a serious threat to the supremacy of oil and coal." www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/01/24/pandora_s_promise_review_nuclear_power_documentary_is_persuasive_and_timely.html
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
More than 400,000 m3 of concrete were used during the erection of the sarcophagus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_sarcophagus) Sorry, my bad, it was enough concrete to lay a four inch slab over 4,000 square km of area.
Rob Marold · 2 years ago
user_image
Ah, ok. Sorry, I misread that :) I still return to my earlier point about it being a reactor design that would not be built here, and would have relied on active safety systems, whereas new designs rely on passive safety and the laws of physics to prevent a runaway situation as seen in Chernobyl...and no design would ever be built without a containment building as Chernobyl was.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Having to produce this amount of concrete would produce an amazing extra amount of CO2 emissions anyway.
Jennifer Millar · 2 years ago
user_image
If you are referring to Chernobyl, then this volume of concrete is not something that would be required for other reactors that we would build, ones that would actually have a containment building, and would have the passive safety systems discussed elsewhere. If you are referring to the CO2 emissions involved in the building of a new reactor, then these are taken into consideration when comparing nuclear with renewables, which also produce CO2 in their production.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
The total cost over 30 years is estimated at US$235 billion (in 2005 dollars) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
Rob Marold · 2 years ago
user_image
It should be noted that Chernobyl was a reactor design that should never have been built and would never be built now, the lack of a containment building being by far the worst of it's poor design. Do you compare the state of renewables now with the state of renewables 40 odd years ago? Again it is disingenuous to give credit to the advances made in renewables while at the same time judging nuclear on 40 year old technology. And as I have posted elsewhere, if you look at deaths per energy source, nuclear comes out just fine.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
I say "how is that a bad start for a total cost of nothing?", and I am still referring to the government paying for solar on every roof, and getting peoples electricity money for a reasonable period until it is all repaid, thereby making it free, for the government. Dealing with the inefficiencies I speak of, there is a significant reduction in carbon, but not an elimination, that would require an alternative approach as well. Uranium is one option, but by far the most insane. I have always aimed for the total decarbonisation of society, with safe and extant technologies, in doable stages. PS. How much would it cost to build eight small nuclear power stations around Australia anyway? How much did it cost Russia to lay concrete over the four thousand square kilometers of the radioactive wasteland that used to be Chernobyl?
Rob Marold · 2 years ago
user_image
For a case study you can refer to http://www.zerocarbonoptions.com/
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Do you have a link to laying concrete over four thousand square km?
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Sufficient for what, total carbon neutrality no, but a sixty percent reduction, by not having coal burning during the day, would be doing something now. The peak demands for energy are during the day time, when industry and commerce are in full swing. Power stations that are then not running during the day time, would emit zero CO2. We could then implement some electricity wastage control measures, at night, probably just by making night time rates much more expensive. Turning water heaters on during the day would put the whole "off peak tariff rate" load into the day time solar load, instead of night time coalar power. We could fit most lights with intelligent sensors, so that they are only on when they are useful. Ban night shifts where it is not obligatory by the nature of the business. Measures like these, could eventually even halve our night time usage, resulting in a overall CO2 reduction of eighty percent, over five years, with only this option being developed. How is that a bad start for a total cost of nothing, and with no major changes of lifestyle, and no dangers. Estimates of total costing are difficult, but if we traded coal to china, directly for solar panels, without the normal stock-market interference, it could be very cheap. At the moment it costs fourteen to seventeen thousand dollars to solar power a residential property at the current prices, and turnover. A lot of that is labour, but the total cost could come down conceivably to eight thousand a house. How many residences at the moment could have solar fitted with over unity capacity possible? 7.8 million households (ABS) minus already fitted houses (1 million) apartment buildings and high rise 2.8 (Approximately) should give about four million houses to do. 32 billion dollars total over four years, is eight billion a year, and almost zero unemployment during that time. Add to this that it will cost the consumer the same as their current bill, but after an eight year period power would be free. At the current rate of take-up, the millionth home will tap into solar power before the end of June 2013, said Professor Ray Wills, chief adviser to the Sustainable Energy Association (SEA) (http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/solar-panel-takeup-warms-to-a-million-20121010-27d7b.html) Solar is safe, it is doable now, and it will make a staggering difference to our carbon footprint.
Rob Marold · 2 years ago
user_image
You say "how is that a bad start for a total cost of nothing?", are you still referring to the government paying for solar on every roof? Even with the efficiencies you speak of, there is a reduction in carbon certainly, but not an elimination, why not aim for total decarbonisation? The links I referred to earlier in response to my question are http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/04/remote-solar-pv-costs/ and http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/22/small-low-co2-energy-systems/
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Nuclear incidents 2000-2013 2002 Onagawa, Japan Two workers were exposed to a small amount of radiation and suffered minor burns during a fire. 2002 21 Jan Manche, France Control systems and safety valves fail after improper installation of condensers, forcing a two-month shutdown. 2002 Feb 16 Oak Harbor, Ohio, US Severe corrosion of control rod forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor. 2003 Jan 15 Bridgman, Michigan, USA A fault in the main transformer at the Donald C. Cook nuclear power plant causes a fire that damages the main generator and back-up turbines. 2004 16 May Cattenom-2, Lorraine, France Sub-standard electrical cables at the Cattenom-2 nuclear reactor cause a fire in an electricity funnel, damaging safety systems. 2004 9 Aug Mihama, Japan A steam explosion at the Mihama-3 station; the subsequent investigation revealed a serious lack in systematic inspection in Japanese nuclear plants, which led to a massive inspection program. 2005 19 Apr Sellafield, UK 20 tonnes uranium and 160 kg plutonium leak from a cracked pipe at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. 2005 Jun 16 Braidwood, Illinois, USA Exelon’s Braidwood nuclear station leaks tritium and contaminates local water supplies. 2006 Fukushima No1, Japan A small amount of radioactive steam was released at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant and it escaped the compound. 2006 Mar 6 Erwin, Tennessee, USA Nuclear fuel services plant spills 35 litres of highly enriched uranium, necessitating 7-month shutdown. 2007 16 Jul Kashiwazaki, Japan a severe earthquake (measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale) hit the region where Tokyo Electric's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant is located and radioactive water spilled into the Sea of Japan. As of March 2009, all of the reactors remain shut down for damage verification and repairs; the plant with seven units was the largest single nuclear power station in the world. 2008 13 Jul Tricastin, France Dozens of litres of wastewater contaminated with uranium are accidentally poured on the ground and runoff into a nearby river. 2005 4 Aug Buchanan, New York, USA Entergy’s Indian Point Energy Center Nuclear Plant leaks tritium and strontium into underground lakes from 1974 to 2005. 2009 9 Aug Gravelines, France Assembly system fails to properly eject spent fuel rods from the Gravelines Nuclear Power Plant, causing the fuel rods to jam and the defueling operation to be suspended. 2009 Dec Hamaoka, Japan Leakage accident of Radio active water. 34 workers were exposed to radiation. 2010 7 Jan Buchanan, New York, USA NRC inspectors reported that an estimated 600,000 gallons of mildly radioactive steam was intentionally vented after an automatic shutdown of Indian Point Energy Center Unit 2. The levels of tritium in the steam were below those allowable by NRC safety standards. 2010 4 Feb Montpelier, Vermont, US Deteriorating underground pipes from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant leak radioactive tritium into groundwater supplies. 2011 11 Mar Fukushima No1, Japan The world's second INES 7 accident. A magnitude 9.0 earthquake and associated tsunami triggered cooling problems at Fukushima 1 & 2 stations with several reactors. Hydrogen explosions cause structural damage, and loss of coolant results in meltdowns in three units and a fire in overheated spent fuel rods. Radioactive steam was released into the atmosphere, and highly radioactive water spilled into the ocean through utility trenches. Some immediate injuries resulted. 2011 18 Oct Karachi, Pakistan The KANUPP Karachi nuclear power plant imposed a seven-hour emergency after heavy water leaked from a feeder pipe to the reactor. The leakage took place during a routine maintenance shut down, and the emergency was lifted seven hours later, after the affected area was isolated. 2012 5 Apr Penly, France Fire on a primary pump of the second reactor, followed by a small radioactive leak inside the pump. Pre 2000 there were 70 reported nuclear incidents.
Rob Marold · 2 years ago
user_image
So how many deaths is that then?
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Is it about deaths is it? You know, cause things like radiation leaks, radioactive waste, the effects of radiation on the environment and in the foodchain (of which we are a part), contamination of water sources with radiation... radiation sickness, radiation poisoning, fertility problems, cancers, deformed foetuses, children with deformities and genetic abnormalities, all this is fine hey? death is the only thing to worry about right?
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
So you have evidence to support your claims? Post them. My comments were in response to comments made by Rob, but if you want to join in, fine, please provide evidence for your claims. I am still waiting for evidence to support your claim about the Environment Institute.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Rob, feel free to rejoin the discussion.....
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
This is a question about whether you think that the Australian government would be well advised to immediately pay for the installation of solar power panels to the roof of every house in this country. When you address that issue I will respond.
Rob Marold · 2 years ago
user_image
I personally don't think the government should be paying for solar on every roof, as I don't think it will make a sufficient difference to the issue of carbon emissions. This is a question I asked on the brave new climate website and the answer was that it would not be sufficient. I will search out the answer and link to it. If everyone did have solar on their roof, what would we use at night? If this were the approach, what are the costings?
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
I personally don't think the government should be paying for solar on every roof, as I don't think it will make a sufficient difference to the issue of carbon emissions. This is a question I asked on the brave new climate website and the answer was that it would not be sufficient. I will search out the answer and link to it. If everyone did have solar on their roof, what would we use at night? If this were the approach, what are the costings?
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Apologies for the double post.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
You wish me to provide evidence that radiation causes cancer, deformities, infertility and potentially death? Are you serious? If you honestly question that nuclear radiation causes these illnesses... well... I don't even know how to finish that sentence, pick up a book or just bloody google it.
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
I wish you to provide evidence that the radiation resulting from the nuclear energy industry is responsible for the things you claim. I am aware of the effects of radiation, but the claims you make are that those effects are happening as a result of the production of nuclear energy. You make a claim, you back it up. So far all we have had is bluster.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
actually what I have claimed is that nuclear incidents occur rather frequently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents) and when they do, radiation is released (ie, chernobyl, three mile island, fukishima), and it seems we agree on the effects of radiation. I posted links about the effects of radiation from the CDC and the USNRC under another question, I will post them after this comment, because I am apparently limited to one link per post.
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/arsphysicianfactsheet.asp http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
funny isnt it how I am able to provide links from neutral, unbiased sources, while all your links are from pro-nuclear, biased sources of (by definition) junk science? Its funny that you state "you make a claim, you back it up" but so far you have not backed up any of your claims with any substantial facts. As you chose to dictate to me about references, I will dictate to you, please furnish links to authoritative or well researched and referenced articles that support your claims and are from neutral sources (that means no bias). The reason why bias (such as research conducted by a pro-nuclear group) is that regardless of your intentions, when you set out to prove something you already believe to be true, thanks to the way the human brain works, you are only going to convince yourself that its true, that's why we have the scientific method. It seems you were unaware of the importance of this issue of bias. Now you are.
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
Finally some links, but they do not support your claims. In your own wikipedia link it states "There have been comparatively few fatalities associated with nuclear power plant accidents." The table in that link lists deaths that, with the exception of Chernobyl, would be the equivalent road death toll for a single long weekend in Australia. I assume you similarly agitate for the banning of cars? For your favoured trio of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukishima, how many radiation related deaths were there? 56, all from Chernobyl. Your other links to the effects of radiation sickness do not prove your claims, there was never a dispute that radiation sickness exists. How many incidents or radiation sickness are attributable to the nuclear energy industry is what is in question. Your links to the Adelaide Research and Innovation Pty Ltd are disingenuous to say the least, what do they have to do with the Enviroment Institute, which is who you claimed (and I have refuted) received money from the nuclear industry. You still have provided no evidence to support this claim. And for the links you do provide for Adelaide Research and Innovation Pty Ltd , where is the nuclear industry mentioned? Your constant bleatings of 'bias' without supporting evidence, and without a single link to refute the science I have linked to leads me to quote Inigo Montoya and say "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." With your self-claimed legendary generational googling skills you should be able to provide evidence for the bias you ascribe to both the Environment Institute and the authors of the Canadian paper, and also to refute the science in those papers. Your whinging about not being able to read the paper on nuclear being least-cost, low-carbon baseload power source suggests you haven't even attempted to read the link I provided. In the first paragraph of that page you will read "If you want a PDF copy of the paper, email me", with an email link. Whilst doing so you can put your claims of bias and industry funding directly to professor Brook. You say "but so far you have not backed up any of your claims with any substantial facts.". If these facts are as insubstantial as you claim, you should easily be able to refute them. I am still waiting. You say "pro-nuclear, biased sources of (by definition) junk science" but you only claim junk science because you disagree with it, based on your own bias (I hope someone reading these exchanges is playing bias bingo). Here's another link for you http://88.167.97.19/albums/files/TMTisFree/Documents/Climate/Breeder_reactors_A_renewable_energy_source_pad11983cohen.pdf
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
If you want to do some reading on more recent nuclear reactor technologies, here is a free book you can read http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Lol you just keep repeating yourself. Here is a recap. You posted two links to junk science that you claim supports your claims (nuclear is the best, low cost, low carbon option) I questioned their validity, you requested I provide links as "evidence" I supplied links as requested and also links to support my claim (Australians don't want nuclear and the risk of incidents are too high (99 so far) and the consequences too great). Since then... well, your comments speak for themselves. Let me clear things up a little, you seem confused. My argument is "the Australian public do not want nuclear power stations in their area" to back this up I quote several opinion polls, you replied that they are misinformed and opinion polls aren't science. I replied that this is a democracy and opinion polls are important, if nobody wants nuclear reactors near them, to get your way you will have to force something upon Australians that they don't want. My other claim was that the risk of an incident is too great. To back that up I provided evidence of the number of incidents and evidence of the consequences of radiation being released. You have had several frivolous complaints about this, but you can't get around the statistics of the number of accidents and we can't take you seriously unless you accept that radiation causes radiation related illnesses, which you won't, because you know what that means. Specifically, Chernobyl is a minimum of 4000 to a max of 9000000. Take your pick, 47 isn't there. Take some time, I will be here tomorrow.
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
If your definition of junk science is industry funding, point me to a university producing research that to you is not "junk science". You made a specific claim about funding coming from the nuclear industry, and not one piece of evidence you have provided has shown that. The closest you can get is "industry", so by your definition every university in Australia produces junk science.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
I'll go with the 50 so far. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html you should also take a look at http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/20110423_FAQs_Chernobyl.pdf
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
And http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/ and I will repeat that Chernobyl was a reactor design that is not under consideration for GenIII or GenIV reactors, which have passive safety systems, and containment buildings.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
And http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/ and I will repeat that Chernobyl was a reactor design that is not under consideration for GenIII or GenIV reactors, which have passive safety systems, and containment buildings.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
http://www.livescience.com/13876-nuclear-energy-dangers-coal.html
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Since you object to nuclear, what is your proposal for decarbonising the energy supply?
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
this is what we keep hearing, "trust us, this time its safe", but three generations and so far and gen3 plants are still well represented in the list of "accidents". yeah, nobody is convinced by these claims anymore. I have read a lot regarding the controversy surrounding Chernobyl health effects. The problem is, we know what the health effects of radiation exposure are, the science is solid. So when we drop nuclear bombs, or have reactor meltdowns, and then we have a subsequent spike in the rates of these negative health issues and have scientists on one hand saying its not related, scientists on the other hand saying it is related, and scientists in the middle saying some of its related but not all of it, we have to consider carefully who we choose to listen to. The fact remains though, australians dont want nuclear reactors build anywhere near them, and the risks associated with nuclear accidents and the frequency of nuclear accidents are much too high. as to what my proposal for decarbonising the nuclear energy supply? my proposal is not politically feasible. its the "right" solution, but it will never happen, I accept that.
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
I agree here. BUT every household can afford to install a FEW solar panels. I am an aged pensioner yet I have saved and put in 1.65kw and so far cut my useage by 1/3. It is just a case of individual priorities, But when the various governments cut the rebates for installation, and then feed in tariffs, they were being VERY short sighted.
Jennifer Millar · 2 years ago
user_image
No, it is not short sighted, it is levelling the playing field. The only reason solar pv has been seen as financially viable has been because of the subsidies. If there were similar subsidies for nuclear, people would be up in arms. Rooftop solar has a part to play, but even on every roof will not solve the problem of decarbonising the energy supply.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks News release 28 February 2013 | GENEVA - A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated. The WHO report ‘Health Risk Assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami based on preliminary dose estimation’ noted, however, that the estimated risk for specific cancers in certain subsets of the population in Fukushima Prefecture has increased and, as such, it calls for long term continued monitoring and health screening for those people. Experts estimated risks in the general population in Fukushima Prefecture, the rest of Japan and the rest of the world, plus the power plant and emergency workers that may have been exposed during the emergency phase response. “The primary concern identified in this report is related to specific cancer risks linked to particular locations and demographic factors,” says Dr Maria Neira, WHO Director for Public Health and Environment. “A breakdown of data, based on age, gender and proximity to the nuclear plant, does show a higher cancer risk for those located in the most contaminated parts. Outside these parts - even in locations inside Fukushima Prefecture - no observable increases in cancer incidence are expected.” In terms of specific cancers, for people in the most contaminated location, the estimated increased risks over what would normally be expected are: all solid cancers - around 4% in females exposed as infants; breast cancer - around 6% in females exposed as infants; leukaemia - around 7% in males exposed as infants; thyroid cancer - up to 70% in females exposed as infants (the normally expected risk of thyroid cancer in females over lifetime is 0.75% and the additional lifetime risk assessed for females exposed as infants in the most affected location is 0.50%). For people in the second most contaminated location of Fukushima Prefecture, the estimated risks are approximately one-half of those in the location with the highest doses. The report also references a section to the special case of the emergency workers inside the Fukushima NPP. Around two-thirds of emergency workers are estimated to have cancer risks in line with the general population, while one-third is estimated to have an increased risk. The almost-200-page document further notes that the radiation doses from the damaged nuclear power plant are not expected to cause an increase in the incidence of miscarriages, stillbirths and other physical and mental conditions that can affect babies born after the accident. “The WHO report underlines the need for long-term health monitoring of those who are at high risk, along with the provision of necessary medical follow-up and support services,” says Dr Maria Neira, WHO Director for Public Health and Environment. “This will remain an important element in the public health response to the disaster for decades.” “In addition to strengthening medical support and services, continued environmental monitoring, in particular of food and water supplies, backed by the enforcement of existing regulations, is required to reduce potential radiation exposure in the future,” says Dr Angelika Tritscher, Acting Director for WHO’s Food Safety and Zoonosis Department. As well as the direct health impact on the population, the report notes that the psychosocial impact may have a consequence on health and well-being. These should not be ignored as part of the overall response, say the experts. This is the first-ever analysis of the global health effects due to radiation exposure after the Fukushima NPP accident and is the result of a two-year WHO-led process of analysis of estimated doses and their potential health implications. The independent scientific experts came from the fields of radiation risk modelling, epidemiology, dosimetry, radiation effects and public health. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/index.html
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
"CATCHING a flight out of Fukushima in the wake of the nuclear disaster two years ago would have given you a larger dose of radiation than staying put. This is the upshot of a new report from the World Health Organization estimating that for residents exposed to the radiation leak, the risk of developing cancer has increased only slightly. People had been most worried about an increase in thyroid cancer, due to exposure to radioactive iodine. The report says the risk has increased by 70 per cent, but in practice this only adds 0.5 per cent to the existing risk. This would mean that a woman's lifetime risk of getting thyroid cancer might rise from 0.75 to 1.25 if she had been exposed as an infant. The margin of increase for other cancers was much lower. After Chernobyl, most of the population got a dose of less than 9 millisieverts of radiation over 20 years, says Gerry Thomas at Imperial College London – less than an international flight." (www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729073.300-cancer-risk-lower-than-feared-for-fukushima-locals.html)
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
If residents of Tokyo want to live a longer life they should move to the Fukishima exclusion zone...the radiation levels there are less life threatening than the air pollution in Tokyo. The radiation levels in the exclusion zone are lower than the natural background levels in many part of the world. As for expensive, I suggest you read this http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/11/28/nuclear-is-the-least-cost-low-carbon-baseload-power-source/ For the concept of distributed energy (panels on every roof), I would suggest http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/30/solar-wind-combined/ Renewables definitely play a part in dealing with the climate change issue, but dismissing the current best option for rapid decarbonisation based on myth and scaremongering is not helpful.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
It is not the scale of the meltdown that is important, it is the fact that, whatever the cause, it did start to melt down, releasing clouds of radiation that went around the entire northern hemisphere.
Rob Marold · 2 years ago
user_image
With no resulting deaths.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
With no reported deaths yet! As I said previously, "It is not the scale of the meltdown that is important, it is the fact that, whatever the cause, it did start to melt down, releasing clouds of radiation that went around the entire northern hemisphere". Who is looking to the future here. We do not know what level of radiation will be needed to tip the scales in favour of the "no life on the planet" scenario, and until we do, we should not go on blindly supporting this technology. Until we know it is actually safe, not just theoretically safe, we should avoid it. The background radiation levels you talk of here, are the levels that are around nowadays, after Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima and many other "unreported" releases of radioactive products from the nuclear industry, and the thousands of nuclear bomb testings that have been done in this half century. This level needs to be compared to the levels that were around in 1944 to be useful, but that's right we don't have those figures. Nobody knew enough about what they were doing then to collect some data to compare with today.
Rob Marold · 2 years ago
user_image
With no reported deaths yet! As I said previously, "It is not the scale of the meltdown that is important, it is the fact that, whatever the cause, it did start to melt down, releasing clouds of radiation that went around the entire northern hemisphere". Who is looking to the future here. We do not know what level of radiation will be needed to tip the scales in favour of the "no life on the planet" scenario, and until we do, we should not go on blindly supporting this technology. Until we know it is actually safe, not just theoretically safe, we should avoid it. The background radiation levels you talk of here, are the levels that are around nowadays, after Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima and many other "unreported" releases of radioactive products from the nuclear industry, and the thousands of nuclear bomb testings that have been done in this half century. This level needs to be compared to the levels that were around in 1944 to be useful, but that's right we don't have those figures. Nobody knew enough about what they were doing then to collect some data to compare with today.
Rob Marold · 2 years ago
user_image
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/30/solar-wind-combined/ This article is irrelevent to the real world, as noone here is even suggesting an exclusively solar/wind generation system. This link, http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/11/28/nuclear-is-the-least-cost-low-carbon-baseload-power-source/, does not give us any real information, as it compares nuclear to base load options only, and does not include any mention of hydroelectricity, wave power, geothermal energy, and tidal power. A combination of All of these options, pulverised fuel coal combustion (PF coal) coupled with carbon capture and storage (CCS), integrated gasification combined cycle coal (IGCC) with CCS, combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) with CCS, solar thermal with heat storage and gas turbines, hydroelectricity, wave power, geothermal energy, and tidal power would give enough green power to run the world, and I think, reduce the costs of electrticity to the public. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032101000028 is a great article. I don't care what the surveys claim. I know that I would rather pay extra up front, for the infrastructure needed to set up a clean and renewable energy supply, than to gamble on the already suspect testimony of the nuclear industry.
Rob Marold · 2 years ago
user_image
When talking about background radiation I am not talking about the sources you refer to, I am talking about the natural levels from the environment, for a breakdown, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation As you can see the contribution from, for example consumer items, or cosmic radiation, is orders of magnitudes more than from something like chernobyl or from the nuclear fuel cycle. As both Japan and Germany have shown, shutting down nuclear leads to an increase in the use of fossil fuels. Are you aware that there is 100 times more radiation coming from the stacks of a coal fired station than from a nuclear station? And of course people are looking to the future, and knowing the half-life of radioactive elements can accurately predict future levels. As for safety, have you done any research on GenIII+ and GenIV reactors, which rely on passive safety systems, so even if the entire operating staff of a reactor is incapacitated, the reactor will shut itself down, based on the laws of physics. I suspect we are both on the same side of the fence when it comes to AGW, and the need to do something about it, and fast. The differences lie in my reading and research showing that renewables, as they currently stand, are not sufficient to decarbonise our energy supply. Nuclear is, and is something we can start doing now (as are countries like China, India, and even the UAE)....if some breakthrough in storage technology or renewable capacity factors comes through, great, I'll be the first one on board. But to reject our current best option based on scaremongering and myths is disingenuous. Also, by supporting nuclear I am not saying that we should not invest in renewables, or that they should form no part of the solution....on the contrary, they will form an essential part of the solution, but as environmentalists like George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, Barry Brook and James Hansen are all saying, nuclear is currently by far our best hope.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
how ridiculous "no reported deaths" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll nobody wants nuclear power anywhere near them, where do you think you are going to put these nuclear power plants? if nuclear is our best hope, we are screwed. most methods of harvesting renewables will only get cheaper as time goes on, in fact solar panels and wind turbines have dropped and will continue to drop as demand increases... https://theconversation.edu.au/newsflash-solar-power-costs-are-falling-below-fossil-fuels-7215 while the cost of nuclear power can only increase as demand increases (you know, supply and demand, all that)
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
So from the Fukishima incident which we were talking about, what 'reported deaths' are you referring to? If you want to look at deaths by energy source, I suggest http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=1012 and note that the most deaths are caused by hydro. As for location of reactors, I would be more than happy to live close to one....better than than a coal station. The cost of renewables dropping is not the issue, it is their inability to completely replace fossil fuels that is the issue. People talk about advances coming which will deal with this, but that is currently wishful thinking, and to deal with carbon emissions we cannot sit around twiddling our thumbs waiting for these advances which may or may not come. Start building nuclear now, if something better does come around, great, we can move to that, but you are suggesting we waste the next 10, 20, who-knows-howm-many years continuing with the current status quo until something which may never come arrives.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
And I would be interested to hear you elucidate on your theory that "while the cost of nuclear power can only increase as demand increases".
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Oh I would love to... you see, as the oil runs out, it gets more expensive, this is supply and demand... the same will apply for uranium, uranium is a finite resource, China, India and Africa (and the rest of the world) will keep developing, their populations will keep increasing, increasing their energy needs... this will put more demand on the uranium mining industry, raising the costs exponentially from what is already a rather expensive form of energy... still with me? YOU may be stupid enough to want to live near nuclear power plants, but the rest of Australia is fortunately not that stupid... So like I said, good luck finding a place to put these power plants... 99 nuclear accidents so far around the world... out of 437 nuclear powerplants, there have been 99 accidents, 22 of which involved fatalities... fu*k that right off!! what do you think the odds are of another nuclear accident?
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
wow, did you even look at the link you posted at world-nuclear.org? firstly here is the first paragraph from the "about WNA" section of the webpage "The World Nuclear Association is the international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry". secondly they list the deaths from Chernobyl at "47+". The atomic energy agency refuses to acknowledge any more than 50 immediate deaths and 4000 radiation deaths. That decision is really controversial, because estimates range as high as 27,000 using the same model (Linear No-Threshold Model), which incidentally was proven conclusively inaccurate more than 60 years ago. Infant mortality alone following Chernobyl increased 20%, over 30% of the original 2 million "official victims" of Chernobyl died from complications attributable to radiation poisoning. If Fukishima is anything like Chernobyl real scientists will be arguing with bought and paid for scientists for decades to come about what the actual death toll was. Sorry, I got distracted, the website you sent is openly pro-nuclear, so has no credibility. Let alone the fact that it lists the death toll from Chernobyl at much less than the IAEA's already far too low 4000... No wonder you think Nuclear is a great option, you only listen to the people trying to sell you on the idea of nuclear.
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
Again, provide links. The WHO has spent 20+ years studying the chernobyl incident, I suggest you start there. Your suggestion that I listen to only those trying to sell me on the idea of nuclear is unsupported. When you can provide rebuttals to environmentalists like James Hansen, Barry Brook, Tom Blees, Mark Lynas and George Monbiot then we may be able to continue this. If you don't agree with the totals for deaths per energy source provided by the source I provided, then present alternatives. Shouting 'bias' proves nothing. If they are wrong, there will be evidence. Link to it.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
"Uranium is a finite resource". Have you researched GenIV reactors? Have you provided evidence to refute the paper saying that nuclear is "inexhaustible". Or are you just raising your voice? You have also not yet provided evidence to support your claim that the Environment Institute accepts funding from nuclear organisations. Which organisations? How much? Evidence please? So far your approach is just a Gish Gallop....throw as many accusations out there as you can,and some will stick.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Have you read the report comparing the costs of replacing energy stations in south Australia with nuclear or wind? Have you provided evidence for your claim that more demand for renewables makes the price cheaper but more demand for nuclear makes the price more expensive?
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
"These are not corporate stooges of the nuclear industry; to a person, their embrace of nuclear power is motivated by a deep concern about climate change and the conviction that no other carbon-free source of energy is sufficient (and safe) enough to replace coal and gas." http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/nuclear_energy_and_climate_change_environmentalists_debate_how_to_stop_global.html
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
"you see, as the oil runs out, it gets more expensive, this is supply and demand... the same will apply for uranium, uranium is a finite resource" Not in the way you are assuming. As mentioned before, it is effectively 'inexhaustable'. You have not yet shown evidence to disagree with this, merely making unsubstantiated claims about people. "YOU may be stupid enough to want to live near nuclear power plants, but the rest of Australia is fortunately not that stupid..." And now with the ad hominem....there are a lot more people who are better informed than you think and who would have no issue with a sensibly sited reactor. Many of those who would object are basing their objection on the same set of fears and lack of knowledge about nuclear that you have so far displayed. " Infant mortality alone following Chernobyl increased 20%, over 30% of the original 2 million "official victims" of Chernobyl died from complications attributable to radiation poisoning." Evidence for this please. "If Fukishima is anything like Chernobyl real scientists will be arguing with bought and paid for scientists for decades to come about what the actual death toll was." So the scientists you agree with are pure, anyone else is "bought and paid for"? Again, this is a common thread in your postings, but without a single piece of evidence to support it.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
The "paper" you linked to is biased. I mean, it started out claiming that it was setting out to prove that uranium was "inexhaustible". You can find the information I posted about Chernobyl by Googling it, the Wikipedia articles are well referenced, and you can even click on many of the sources to get even more information. You will note that Wikipedia has rules about biased references, so you won't find many of your sources there. You really need to stop getting all of your information from biased sources, when you buy a car do you trust the salesman to give you the right information or do you research it yourself first? I think I can guess the answer. You will note time and time again polls show around 50-60% don't want nuclear power in Australia and 70-80% don't want nuclear power plants in their area. With 99 incidents over 437 nuclear plants, those are really bad odds, 22 of those involved fatalities, and we already know the increased stillbirths, cancers, etc following the release of massive doses of radiation from these "incidents" aren't counted in the death toll, nor are the increases in neural tube defects and genetic/chromosomal abnormalities, tumours etc that harm quality of life for victims. So actually, I posit that despite the fact that 22 incidents involving fatalities is pretty bad, clearly (meaning nearly 1/4 chance, and Australia needs at least 25 reactors I read, so that's what 6 incidents over the next few decades, going on the statistics so far? At least one involving direct fatalities? Just running the numbers here.
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
Again you make a claim of bias with no evidence.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
You mean, apart from the site you linked to admitting it was pro-nuclear?
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
The site I linked to that was clearly a nuclear industry site, yes. The one that did not make any claims of not being an industry site, yes. The one that cited numbers of deaths per energy source which you have continued to avoid providing evidence to challenge, yes.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Funny how you don't seem to want to talk about the opinion polls hey? Or the comparison of nuclear "incidents" with the number of online reactors? No... let's not do that... are my figures wrong? Is that not the number of incidents? Is this not the number of incidents with direct fatalities? Is there not controversy over direct fatalities and subsequent fatalities attributed to Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Chernobyl? Good tactic that, criticise somebody for not including a bunch of biased references in each comment... shall I start including links in each comment I make to sources of the same quality, validity, and reliability as yours?
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not nuclear reactors, and as such are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Opinion polls are not science, and people fear nuclear reactors for the same reason you do, ignorance. I am it criticising you for "not including a bunch of biased references", I am criticising you for not providing any references. All we get is your opinion, which considering your attempts at misinformation, is worth little. I'll say it again, if you have evidence to back up your arguments, cite it. Shouting 'bias'again and again in a hope that it is all people will remember is a tactic used by AGW deniers all the time.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
No, they are not irrelevent, we are discussing the effects of radiation. Lol. I have provided evidence to support my statements, from unbiased sources. Bias in science is a serious issue, so you can ridicule it all you want, the fact is biased "science" is junk science by definition, we learned the scientific method in high school, I suggest you brush up. I have provided several unbiased links so far, while you have provided two biased links, now you realise you cannot find any unbiased sources to agree with what you are saying lol. By the way, when did I become a global warming deniar? Do you think I would stick around to play with you for so long if I didn't believe it was important to do something? Which brings me to another point, you said something about "in the hope it is all people will remember", sweety, its just us here, how many people do you think are going to bother reading all this? Of those who do take the time and show the commitment to read all of this, don't you think they are also likely to check your sources and mine and consider them? If your concerned about what the infinitesmally small number of people who have bothered to read all of this are thinking, then its in your best interests to start posting supporting "evidence"(your term, not mine) of a higher quality than the two you have posted so far.
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
You are just trolling. You have not refuted any of the evidence, just relied on your own definition of bias, which you have not substantiated. If you claim they are such poor science you can refute them. You haven't. Glad to hear you learned the scientific method in high school, some of us continued that into university. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are irrelevant as we are discussing nuclear power, not nuclear weapons. When I propose decarbonising the power supply by detonating bombs they will become relevant. You have still provided zero evidence to refute the peer-reviewed science I have provided, and you have still provided zero evidence in support of your claims of bias. You may not be an AGW denier, but you use many of the same tactics, obfuscation, Gish Gallop and lack of citation.
S M · 2 years ago
user_image
Hmm... I don't seem to be getting notifications for this thread. We are discussing the effects of radiation, they are indeed relevant to the point I made. Yes, I continued to university, I have studied research methods and statistics, I left that out because it seemed obvious to me you are struggling with the importance of eliminating bias in research. I felt that making a big deal of my post secondary education to somebody who (I assumed) probably failed high school science would be rude and arrogant. My mistake. Where did you study so I can be sure my son doesn't go there and get a comparable education (or lack thereof). Not trolling, a troll would have left when it became obvious it was only you and me left. I have actually provided all of the evidence you requested and substantiated my arguments. But you can keep claiming I haven't, doesn't bother me none. Is this all you have left? You didn't think this through very well did you? I am currently on holidays, tell you what, spend tonight trying to come up with better material, I will be here tomorrow. I am at the beach and its going to rain tomorrow.
Tom Broad · 2 years ago
user_image
I think no matter where your son goes the habits he will have learned from you will make it irrelevant where he studies, he'll be a muppet just like you. "I have actually provided all of the evidence you requested and substantiated my arguments. But you can keep claiming I haven't, doesn't bother me none" so which nuclear industry group is providing the funding you claim?
S M · 2 years ago