The climate change debate continues.

[facthunter]

That was done to give an appearance of caring for the reef ahead of an assessment.by a world body. It's YOUR money RALPH. Nearly 1/2 a billion. Nev.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"while us oldys can refuse to do anything in the knowledge that we will be dead before the worst happens."

 

Perhaps us oldies can plant crops from the warmer regions further away from the heat.

 

I have to cover my pineapple plant, every night as the chance of a frost would likely kill my first tropical fruit.

 

How many degrees warmer for Sydney to grow bananas successfully ?.

 

Roll on spring It's too cold for me at the moment .

 

I am NOT a denialist, I except it is getting warmer. Those young things in summer, make me happy.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Its been getting warmer since the ice age. It hasn’t turned around to getting colder yet, but it will.

 

 

[octave]

.

 

Its been getting warmer since the ice age. It hasn’t turned around to getting colder yet, but it will.

I am still going with the vast majority of scientific organisations an individual scientists. You can only convince me with hard evidence.

 

Even consultants in the mining industry seem to at least to some degree accept the evidence.

 

"My prediction is that the next commodity boom will be uranium, because if extreme events linked to climate change continue at the rate we’re seeing them at the moment, there’s going to be a greater push to source clean base-load energy. "

 

 

[Bruce]

I thought that the world would go to uranium for clean energy and this foolish prediction caused me to lose money on ERA shares.

 

South Australia should have by far the cheapest electricity in the world, with our thousand years of uranium. Alas, we have the most expensive electricity in the world, thanks to a lack of education among the population including the pollies, and too many regulations aimed at making nuclear non-viable. As if the waste couldn't be put back where the original radio-active stuff was dug up from. And as if nuclear power had not advanced since the 1950's.

 

The net result is that South Australia has the highest official unemployment figures in Australia . I reckon the true figures are about 3 times the official. What an achievement huh.

 

 

[octave]

I thought that the world would go to uranium for clean energy and this foolish prediction caused me to lose money on ERA shares.South Australia should have by far the cheapest electricity in the world, with our thousand years of uranium. Alas, we have the most expensive electricity in the world, thanks to a lack of education among the population including the pollies, and too many regulations aimed at making nuclear non-viable. As if the waste couldn't be put back where the original radio-active stuff was dug up from. And as if nuclear power had not advanced since the 1950's.

 

The net result is that South Australia has the highest official unemployment figures in Australia . I reckon the true figures are about 3 times the official. What an achievement huh.

Although I am not philosophically opposed to nuclear I do not believe it is the most economically viable solution at this point although research does continue into cheaper safer reactors. At this stage, reactors are multibillion-dollar projects that would need to be built and possibly owned by huge corporations. Just have a look at Hinkley point C Hinkley Point C nuclear power station - Wikipedia

 

As if the waste couldn't be put back where the original radio-active stuff was dug up from.

Uranium ore is barely radioactive, it needs to be refined the waste is highly radioactive so it is not a case of just putting it back.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Even the biggest spruikers of nuclear like Ziggy Switowski last week admitted that even with the optimist cost reductions of a next gen plant it is not economic.

 

The fundamental costs of nuclear are immense and even the biggest corporations can't afford them without state subsidy and indemnity from any costs of a accident.

 

And they use incredible amounts of energy to build and water we do not have spare.

 

Even in countries with abundant water, the economics do not work for private industry to do it.

 

Solar including costly batteries are now by far the cheapest and that is only getting cheaper. Same with other renewables and pumped hydro storage.

 

Even with no concerns about the environment, it is economically a disaster. It will never happen unless a sociopathic government does it to spite its critics.

 

And then it will be stopped well before a shovel gets near the site by a new government. The lead times are 20 years till full operation.

 

We could spend 10% of the budget every year on nuclear for 20 years and only replace a fifth of our power needs. And not see any power for 20 years.

 

And every plant would need to be near the sea and desalinate the water it needs.

 

The whole nuclear debate is just a smokescreen to look like action.

 

Just moving the deck chairs for a better view on the Titanic.

 

 

[facthunter]

Nuclear does not add up on the cost basis alone plus it is adding heat that otherwise wouldn't be being released and there ARE security issues. Solar energy is unlimited and comes here any how. Excess of it can produce hydrogen which in various forms is very flexible in it's applications and only produces water as a by product. Nev

 

 

[octave]

Hinkley Point C 24.5 billion pounds!

 

I find it amusing that often those enthusiastic about nuclear are the very people don't accept the evidence for anthropomorphic climate change. As I said I am not totally against nuclear (although not at its present state) but climate change is the most compelling argument for considering it, otherwise it remains economically unviable, certainly in this country.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think it an attempt to keep control of essentially a monopoly and not allow people to have free access to anything. It MUST be in the "system". No doing "your own thing". In this case an Industry makes "captive customers" even if it requires a subsidy from a government, to get it going, which is easily squared off by a post ParLIARment job package for the minister involved or a political donation in some form. (travel etc). Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

It is only too easy to make something so expensive that you stop it happening. As I write this, I can see the roof of the old shearing shed and it needs painting. $200 for the paint I guess. but to do it legally would require licensed scaffolders etc. Maybe $20,000 in total. Now there is not enough return from sheep to make this a viable idea, so nothing will happen unless I do it myself, and I'm a bit old to paint a roof. (That's what my wife says, so it must be so)

 

Geo-thermal energy ( hot rocks ) is also nuclear. I lost money on that too.

 

I can't see why the waste is much more radioactive than what was mined. On energy considerations, there must be less there because of the energy extracted. And if it can be concentrated, surely it can be unconcentrated by mixing it with the tailings.

 

Anyway, I think that modern reactors produce quite benign waste.

 

Burt I accept that the political fight has been lost. It would be great if solar voltaic, wind and stored energy were to become viable, but they sure are helping to make high prices at the moment.

 

 

[facthunter]

The waste is MUCH more difficultt to manage than yellowcake. ONE microgramme of plutonium is fatal inside you anywhere..Things that contain the cooling water etc become contaminated. Decommissioning these things is an environmental nightmare requiring safe containment for thousands of years . Chernobel is more dangerous now than it was 20 years ago and so is the Marshall Islands and the Japan sunami atomic Powerstation outcome. Dog knows what THAT cost the Japanese economy, and it's not finished yet. Nev

 

 

[octave]

I can't see why the waste is much more radioactive than what was mined.

Before uranium ore can be used for nuclear fuel it needs to go through a complicated process of enrichment. Uranium Enrichment | Enrichment of uranium - World Nuclear Association

 

Most modern rectors require uranium "enriched" in the isotope U-253. Natural uranium only contains 0.7% of U-235 the other 97.3% is U-235

 

Uranium ore is only barely radioactive before it is refined whereas nuclear waste is highly radioactive. We could just put it back where it came from but it would be much more concentrated than when it was dug out. Spent fuel rods usually contain Uranium-234 (half-life 245000 years). neptunium-237 (half-life 2.1 million years) Plutonium-238 (87 years and americium (423 years).

 

I think shoving it back in the hole it came from is not an option unless you can ensure that future generations won't knowingly or unknowingly dig it up.

 

I am not sure of the details but I believe some waste has to be stored in cooling pools for some time .Spent fuel pool - Wikipedia

 

And, of course, it needs to be transported safely to the waste disposal site. Even if it is doable it is far from a simple proposition.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...It would be great if solar voltaic, wind and stored energy were to become viable, but they sure are helping to make high prices at the moment.

Wrong. They are already more viable than old-fashioned coal and nuclear.

 

The current high prices? Don't blame that on renewables. Blame it on a decade of policy paralysis by the LNP.

 

 

[facthunter]

Their OWN people say they are incapable of addressing the issue due to internal ructions and disagreements. Paralysis is exactly the right term. The longer we delay the greater the amount we will eventually PAY. . We are better positioned with wind and solar opportunities than Just about any other place on earth as well as Pump hydro sites all down the east coast It's all been researched and well documented. It's only VESTED interests that prevent it with the complicity of the current Government, who appease their Backers..Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

From my memory of high-school chemistry, uranium must be turned into ionized form . You add hydroflouric acid and then get uranium hexaflouride. this is then ionized and the lighter isotope is separated by shooting the ionized gas into a magnetic field , where the lighter isotope deflects more and so exits at a different pipe. ( the isotopes are 235 and 238, well they were in 1962 when I was in school. Chemically identical, just a tiny density difference.

 

Then you strip off the flouride and get metallic uranium 235 A big enough chunk of this will explode, so you make 2 halves, both below the critical mass, and jam these together when you want the explosion. Apparently the biggest nuclear secret was the details of the jam-together mechanism. There were no secrets as to the physics of the bomb. Just think how good they were at math to calculate numbers like what the critical mass was.

 

Of course, proper people , like generals, didn't believe the thing would work, well at least until it did.

 

How sobering to realize that those who died on the Kokoda trail for example were killed because of atom bomb skeptics.

 

I reckon we should make lots of these bombs so we can stop having to be beholden to the US for "protection".

 

 

[Litespeed]

The Kokoda trail happened well before the bomb was ready to use.

 

It followed on from the capture of Singapore.

 

The yanks were pretty determined to get it done and dropped off to its intended victims and shrine to war crimes.

 

I could be wrong though I wasn't there.

 

 

[facthunter]

When they did the first actual tests of the bomb (Wasn't it the manhattan project?) they weren't sure the chain reaction wouldn't just keep going. They use centrifuges to concentrate the uranium. . The nazis were using heavy water technology. Nev

 

 

[Litespeed]

Yep Manhattan project.

 

Cost well over a $trillion dollars in today's terms. And that was for two bombs.

 

And any way you look at it was mass murder of civilians and a war crime. But the victor is never punished.

 

Claims it was necessary to end the war are bulls....t. They knew Japan would be done in a matter of a month anyway in its ability to fight. They already were hammered and unable to do anything but suicidal resistance on the last of its islands bar the main islands of Japan. and there they were starving and by that time poorly armed.

 

 

[octave]

On nuclear tests, I came across this video on a youtube channel I follow. This video is about various test sites, how they were used and what state they are in now. Plenty of information I wasn't aware of.

 

Interesting fact, melted sand at the Trinity site which resembles glass was sold as jewellery in the mid-40s (trinitite).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMo7jUs0GMs:77

 

 

[facthunter]

Russia made a rush east to cover more land and that as much as anything might have shortened the war. IF you have the world's biggest double bunger wouldn't you be desperate to let it off? They still have the dubious distinction of being the only country to have used a nuclear bomb on people and particularly civilians as well.. Not nice really.. I regard war as the ultimate madness and something inspired in the dark recesses of the unfathomable human mind. Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

Leo Szilard applied for a patent for the atomic bomb in 1934. The science was well known at that time.

 

The time during the Manhatten Project, where the US, with its unlimited money, brought the bomb to fruition, is described by physics researchers as a desert when progress stood still in favor of nuts and bolts stuff.

 

So educated people knew well before Kokoda that the atom bomb would end the war. Skeptics and deniers of course did their regular thing.

 

Consider Rabaul... there were 100,000 Japanese on this island just north of New Guinea, ( the Darwin bombers came from Rabaul) and they were by-passed, as were the garrisons in Singapore and other places. This should also have happened for the Kokoda trail, those poor soldiers were the victims of stupidity and ignorance and face-saving higher-ups. The Australian government had brought troops "home" against the wishes of Churchill, and needed to show that they were of some use.

 

 

[Bruce]

Luckily for us, the skeptics and deniers included the Germans and the Japanese military. Einstein convinced the American president to pursue the matter against advice from proper people.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"The fundamental costs of nuclear are immense and even the biggest corporations can't afford them without state subsidy "

 

Just like the Adani coal project is getting !.

 

If the Nuclear plants need so much desalinated water, wouldn't there be an amount (ever so small), for the rest of us.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Think about why.

 

[ATTACH]50229._xfImport[/ATTACH]