Why I'm not paying much attention to media reports of the Japanese Nuclear disaster

On March 13th I posted the article below  on my Facebook page.  As of today no member of the public has been killed by the nuclear disaster. However 20,000 have been killed by the tsunami and earth quake.

**************************

I think this is very much the case when all mass media reports on the problems at Fukushima Daiichi reactors need to be treated with caution. Remember:

1) The area has been through a massive natural disasters. The  normal lines of communication are no longer  there.

2) Few of the English speaking reporters know Japanese,  thats going to be a big handicap

3) Few have the necessary technical training to understand the issues

4) The people who actually know whats going on will be working flat out to get the reactors under control not talking to journalists.

So its not surprising we had one TV reporter who was sent there admitting she had no idea whats going on. But they are over there and are paid to get the Story. So a Story we will get, how factual that Story will be is another matter.

Personally, I'm paying little attention to news reports. What I am following are specialist sites like

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html

And  blogs by people with years of  hand on experience in the nuclear industry including the operation of reactors.
like:

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/

Labor begins to consider nuclear power

Image via Wikipedia

Some good news,  a few prominent Labor politicians are calling for their party to begin debating nuclear power for Australia:

Report author Dr John Burgess said nuclear power had two key benefits - it produced continuous output and had no carbon emissions.

"So compared to some of the other technologies it looks quite favourable financially at that time when the carbon price is climbing up to $80 a tonne in about 2030," Dr Burgess told ABC radio.

A number of Labor MPs and senators have seized on the report and want the ALP's national conference to overturn the ban.

Ms Gillard said she remained opposed to nuclear power, adding anyone who would argue to scrap Labor's longstanding policy "is setting themselves up for a pretty tough argument".

"In this country ... nuclear power doesn't stack up as an economically efficient source of power for our nation," she said.

NSW Labor powerbroker Steve Hutchins said the party should keep an open mind on the issue.

"I would think people would ask us to consider all forms of alternative energy to make sure that we can continue to turn on our lights and make sure we have industry to work at," he said.

The only way we will have nuclear power in Australia is for both major parties to support it so the sooner there's a mature discussion the better.

Nukes are the way to go

Image via WikipediaIf you believe in  anthropomorphic global warming and don't support nuclear power you are just not fair dinkum:


Nuclear is the least-cost, low-carbon, baseload power source
Climate change professor supports nuclear in newly published analysis
When a carbon price that is high enough to drive a technology switch eventually kicks in, only nuclear power will keep the lights on, keep electricity costs down, and meet long-term emission reduction targets, say three Australian authors in a paper published this week in international peer-reviewed journal Energy*.
Introducing a carbon price changes relative technology power costs because rates of carbon emissions differ between technologies.
“In order to understand where our future electricity will come from” says lead author Martin Nicholson, “we need the best possible insights into generating technologies, their costs and their carbon emissions”

Nukes for Defense

The Rudd Labor government has a complete ban on nuclear energy for Australia. However concerns over global warming has increased support for the nuclear option. After all nuclear energy is the only emission free method of producing base load power. Tony Abbott believes its an option we need to seriuosly consider. Peter Cosgrove has come out in support and so has Labor Party stalwart Bob Carr. Yet there is another reason to support nuclear power – defense.

Now I'm not considering nuclear weapons here. The only time that would be an option would be if there was a nuclear arms race in the region and we should all pray that never happens. My concern is nuclear propulsion for the navy, especially for our submarines.

Our six Collins class subs are classified as guided-missile submarines (SSG) most other conventional submarines are hunter-killer (SSK). Most SSK patrol close to their bases or at most 1000 nautical miles away. .Our boats are required to operate at greater distances, To reach the Persian Gulf or the Sea of Japan the Collins boats need to travel over 4500 nautical miles. Therefore they are considerably bigger then other conventional submarines and uniquely designed for our usage. That brings its own problems. It makes them more expensive and less reliable then a more common design would be. Importantly they never did meet their original design specifications. They were originally specified with a submerged transit speed of 16 knots over 10,000 nautical miles. That was reduced to 10 knots over 9000 nautical miles as the technology just wasn't available. The lower transit speed reduces the time they can spend on patrol by nearly half.

The government is now considering a replacement for the Collins subs. One option is an improved version of the current Collins boats but they would still have the speed limitations issues. That's why an increase to twelve subs has been proposed. Considering we have enough difficulty finding crews for six subs how we would crew twelve remains an unanswered question. Another option is to improve their performance by adopting new technology such as high temperature superconductor motors and Li-ion batteries. Again that raises concerns over their ultimate cost and reliability.

None of these problems would arise if we had nuclear subs based on proven designs. They would have all the range and speed we would require.. A local nuclear power industry would make maintaining nuclear subs easier but its not really required. For one thing there is no direct link between civilian reactors and submarine reactors . Their design is very different with subs using highly enriched fuel. Also refueling is not a requirement as modern submarines need to be only fueled once for their 20 year plus service life. The maintenance and operation issues could be addressed by requesting US help until we train our own people. That's what the UK did that when they constructed their nuclear fleet. However the government ban on things nuclear means nuclear subs can not be considered.

Labor's ban on nuclear reactors not only reduces our options to reduce CO2 emissions it also reduces our options to properly defend our nation.

Readers are referred to Vital Sign by Abraham Gubler in Defense Technology International April 2008 for more information regarding the current non nuclear options.

Obama likes nukes

President Obama has become a big supporter of nuclear power:

US President Barack Obama has taken a major bet on nuclear power, announcing $US8 billion ($9 billion) in loan guarantees to build the first new plant on US soil in nearly 30 years.

Mr Obama said nuclear power, despite concerns among some environmentalists over safety, must play a key role in an energy policy designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions and wean the United States off foreign oil from volatile regions.

"On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," Mr Obama said today.

"We'll have to build a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in America," he said on a visit to a training centre focusing on clean energy and low carbon energy technologies outside Washington.

I'm not sure why loan guarantees are required but promoting the only emission free baseload power source sounds good to me. Perhaps he can tell Kevin Rudd about the benefits when he visits Australia next month.

Bob Brown and Labor not fair dinkum

This morning we read that Rio Tino has publicly come out in support of nuclear power:

MINING giant Rio Tinto has urged Kevin Rudd to immediately begin work on a regulatory regime allowing use of nuclear energy in Australia, arguing the viability of energy alternatives has been dramatically overstated.

The company has advised the government to consider "every option" for power generation because its pledges on reducing carbon emissions and using renewable energy will expose industry and consumers to huge increases in their power bills.

And it says that overly optimistic assumptions on the viability of alternatives such as wind and geothermal power, as well as so-called clean coal technologies, have created a "false optimism" which the government must challenge by commissioning new research.

As to be expected the Rudd government wants to have nothing to do with nukes:

Earlier yesterday Mr Ferguson dismissed any need for an examination of Labor's prohibition of nuclear reactors at next week's national conference in Sydney.

"Australia is an energy-rich nation possessing abundant sources of low-cost conventional fuels such as coal and gas, as well as many renewable options, such as wind, solar, geothermal and wave energy," Mr Ferguson said through a spokesman.

Unfortunately solar and wind can't provide base load power, and Labor's ETS will make coal and gas more expensive. Nuclear will increasingly become competitive.

My view has always been if you want to reduce carbon emissions and don't support nuclear energy you are just not fair dinkum.

Which brings us to Green leader Bob Brown, who had this to say:

"Australians hate the idea of nuclear power stations," he said.

"Coal and nuclear are both last century. This is a century of renewables".

No they don't senator, public support for nuclear energy is increasing.

Support for nuclear power

My post the other day was timely, Australian engineers and scientists have come out in support of nuclear power in Australia:

AUSTRALIA will probably have to go nuclear to tackle climate change, engineers and scientists say.

They say nuclear power is the only reliable, proven source of electricity with a minimal carbon footprint.

They're tipping 15 per cent of the country's electricity will come from nuclear reactors by 2050.

And the first plant could swing into action just 10 years after approval is given.

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, which represents more than 700 experts, has issued a report calling for nuclear power to be on the table....

Nuke Australia

The global warming of debate will be with us for some time, so I'll take the opportunity to state my views. I accept that the Earth's temperature has increased compared to the 60's and 70's although it seems to have leveled off during the last decade or so. I do not know if global temperature will increase, decrease stay the same or what. I am unconvinced that anybody really does either. Certainly I'm unaware that climatologists were able to predict the current stability.

However what I'm really sceptical about is that any government policy can effect climate. I can't see any real benefit in cap and trade proposals. The ETS will enrich financial traders and public servants at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer. Any effect on emissions will be limited, that has been the experience in Europe. The government wants to cut Australia's emissions at the same time they want to improve infrastructure so we can export more coal to China! Why the Opposition supports ETS I don't know. f there must be financial incentives to reduce CO2 a carbon tax is probably the lesser of the two evils.

Now there is a proven effective way to reduce carbon emissions without sending us broke or having to give up air conditioners. Replace fossil fuels with that safe renewable energy source- nuclear power. Solar, wind etc are useless for base load power, they are to intermittent. The Howard government had the sense to start moving Australia in that direction but Rudd has banned any consideration of the nuclear alternative. There are good environmental and strategic reason for going nuclear that have nothing to do with carbon emissions (for one thing it would allow the RAN to have nuclear vessels) but the facts are startling; Australia's per ca pita carbon emissions 16.3 tons, France 6.2 tons. The French receive 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. As far as I'm concerned people who wants to lower our carbon emissions and refuses to support nuclear power are just not fair dinkum.

The Western Lines is proud supporter of nuclear energy and has signed the petition.