There is pollution attached to all power generation, some more than others, & different kinds of pollution.
One comment was from a woman whose husband died from exposure to uranium, many more have died over the years due to exposure to coal dust. many more die on our roads each year. Does that mean we should ban all coalmining, which of course would mean that we could not produce steel, but that would not be a problem, as we would of course ban all cars, so steel would not be required to build them. And we could go back to building everything out of wood. Nuclear power does not pollute, the byproduct is water. It does produce a toxic residue, but that can be managed in such a way that there is no pollution.
Helen Dawson - 9 years ago
There is no safe way to mine, handle, or process uranium.
The world's existing nuclear power plants are cracking apart during operation.
This is a doomed industry, throwing money at an unsuspecting docile SA public.
Several thousand cracks have been discovered by corrosion experts in the pressure vessels of two reactors at the Belgian nuclear power stations Doel 3 and Tihange 2. Caused by a previously unknown phenomenon, material fatigue, it is feared the finding could have implications outside of Belgium.
The discovery of the cracks in the reactors “could be a problem for the entire global nuclear industry,” says Jan Bens, general director of the Belgian Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC)
http://linkis.com/www.dw.de/cracks-bel/w0bjc
John Matheson - 9 years ago
Paull: "What about Thorium?" This is what: thorium has been ten years away from viability for the last sixty years, and no progress has been made. Thorium is no more than an illusion. Thorium or not, nuclear is not a renewable energy source.
But there os more to it than that. The worst of Chernobyl has not even happened yet - the warning soil from 30 km around the plant will start to give off nuclear emissions as a result of climate change.
And every nuclear power plant around the world is a Fukushima in the wings. Most of the emissions from Fukushima have come from the waste stored in the reactor buildings because there is no where to put it. This is true of every reactor worldwide - they are huge, vulnerable repositories of spent nuclear waste.
How can there be a "Royal Commission" into the nuclear industry in SA when Kevin Scarce has already announced the outcome of the commission on Radio 891 on 10 February.
Paull - 9 years ago
What about Thorium in stead of Uranium? It produces far safer waste and has a lower risk of damage to the surrounding environment if it goes wrong. Australia has massive reserves of Thorium.
Jake - 9 years ago
There a several matters that the highly polluting nuclear lobby don't want you to know about and this one has to be the con of the century in SA. Here's what a US’ uranium enrichment facility did to the ozone with its massive discharges of Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114) which has a global warming potential of 10,000 years? http://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/facility_data?tri_facility_id=42001PDCHGHOBBS&tri=TRIQ1
Other industries endeavoured to abide by the Montreal Protocol on CFCs to mitigate emissions of chlorofluorocarbons while the nuclear industry revealed its utter contempt for the environment, climate change and the fragility of the planet. Outrageously they chopped holes in the ozone for decades and with impunity.
Nuclear power, uranium mining, enrichment, fuel rods, waste storage.
It all has lots of risk.
Sooo much risk that the benefits have to be huge.
The benefits have to be for the workers and for Australia.
Not for any company or foreign interests.
Read, not for any foreign interests or big business.
Benefits have to be for Australians.
We dont want any other countries waste, no matter what dodgy
deal or what contract or how much money is promised or paid.
If any country buys fuel rods then they bought it and
its a no returns item. We do not want nuclear fuel waste
from 7 billion people in the world.
Or we simply do not sell uranium to the world.(better option)
We keep it in house for the betterment of Australia.
Do not allow in anyway Australia to be used by the
rest of the world regarding nuclear power.
Barwon Geelong - 9 years ago
I love how people call nuclear power 'clean energy' when it leaves a lethal radioactive by-product that last thousands of years. Let other countries store their own waste: there is a reason why they want to ship it off their shores and to Australia. Look at Fukashima 2011- 20 mile exclusion zone, mutated insects- well worth it for clean energy!
Ross Dudgeon - 9 years ago
Too many people don't understand the long term (thousands of years) responsibilities of mining, processing, generating power from and storing the waste from Uranium. There are now alternative solar, wind, geothermal and wave power generators for domestic and base load power supplies. Why would you risk more Chernobyls or Fukushimas for short term profit? Radiation kills both quickly and slowly all those who are contaminated.
Victor Leach - 9 years ago
Coal fired fired power station 1000 MW, annual releases.
1. Pollution large tonnages released into the air Carbon dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides , also large site of radionuclides as radium concentrates in coal.
2.1000 MW power station per year requires 2.5 million tonnes of coal approx 38,000 railway trucks.
3. Ash about 12,000 railway trucks plus fly ash.
------------------
1000 MW Nuclear power station
1. No Combustion products, , it emits low level radioactivity.
2. Requires 30 tonnes of enriched uranium
3. Produces 1 Cubic meter of waste
Vested interested is the problem Nuclear waste was never a real problem take to the French who are 99% Nuclear.
m - 9 years ago
This should be a good one for workcover especially with the current or new legislation coming in to effect 1st of July 2015 Hope it covers all employees to their benefit & not the employers benefit hate see who is going to cover any disaster, illnesses, etc from this type of employment , mining etc.
Tony Collins - 9 years ago
May those who promote the nuclear industry be the first to parent the deformed children of the future who will be the legacy of this poisonous industry!
Peter Gun - 9 years ago
I have been a supporter of the complete nuclear cycle from mining right through to generation of electricity. S.A. would become the centre of a nuclear industry not only for our own electricity generation but also that of other states as older coal burning generators reach the end of their economic lives. If a uranium enrichment plant was commissioned here, nuclear fuel rods could be supplied to other countries. Control over the usage of the rods could be maintained by the refusal to supply further rods to recalcitrant users for non return of spent material. With the closure of Holden Cars, Ford Motors as well as Toyota in Australia, the country needs a bold new vision to take us forward to future prosperity. A fully integrated nuclear industry would be a huge start. As a nuclear industry cannot be developed over night. Urgent action should be taken right now. A Royal Commission is a step in the right direction.
Terry Krieg - 9 years ago
Over coming decades, SA should develop the full nuclear fuel cycle: mining uranium, uranium enrichment, uranium reprocessing, fuel rod manufacture, nuclear waste storage, nuclear desalination and nuclear electricity generation. SA could become the clean energy capital of the world once we start using our world's biggest uranium reserves and our world's best nuclear waste disposal site for our own as well as the world's benefit. I've been waiting for 17 years for some political leadership on this issue and I congratulate Jay Weatherill for at last giving some. People, especially those opposed to nuclear have to open their minds on this and they need to answer just one question. If they believe that nuclear is too dirty, too dangerous, too costly, too slow, too every darn thing then: Why are 32 countries continuing to generate 15% of world electricity in 436 reactors, those countries and 17 others are building 70 reactors as I write, 174 have been planned and 301 proposed around the world for the future? These figures have come from the October 2014 newsletter of the World Nuclear Association. The world is on a huge nuclear build programme. Australia should be part of that programme. Nuclear for SA [ the full cycle] is a no brainer.
Linda Ewing - 9 years ago
My husband was contaminated after having to crawl on the ground at the Olympic Dam Expansion project. He was not the only one who was contaminated at that time. He died 7yrs later from a cancer you get from exposure to uranium. This is my story to help raise awareness that the mine needs to close.
There is pollution attached to all power generation, some more than others, & different kinds of pollution.
One comment was from a woman whose husband died from exposure to uranium, many more have died over the years due to exposure to coal dust. many more die on our roads each year. Does that mean we should ban all coalmining, which of course would mean that we could not produce steel, but that would not be a problem, as we would of course ban all cars, so steel would not be required to build them. And we could go back to building everything out of wood. Nuclear power does not pollute, the byproduct is water. It does produce a toxic residue, but that can be managed in such a way that there is no pollution.
There is no safe way to mine, handle, or process uranium.
The world's existing nuclear power plants are cracking apart during operation.
This is a doomed industry, throwing money at an unsuspecting docile SA public.
Several thousand cracks have been discovered by corrosion experts in the pressure vessels of two reactors at the Belgian nuclear power stations Doel 3 and Tihange 2. Caused by a previously unknown phenomenon, material fatigue, it is feared the finding could have implications outside of Belgium.
The discovery of the cracks in the reactors “could be a problem for the entire global nuclear industry,” says Jan Bens, general director of the Belgian Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC)
http://linkis.com/www.dw.de/cracks-bel/w0bjc
Paull: "What about Thorium?" This is what: thorium has been ten years away from viability for the last sixty years, and no progress has been made. Thorium is no more than an illusion. Thorium or not, nuclear is not a renewable energy source.
But there os more to it than that. The worst of Chernobyl has not even happened yet - the warning soil from 30 km around the plant will start to give off nuclear emissions as a result of climate change.
And every nuclear power plant around the world is a Fukushima in the wings. Most of the emissions from Fukushima have come from the waste stored in the reactor buildings because there is no where to put it. This is true of every reactor worldwide - they are huge, vulnerable repositories of spent nuclear waste.
How can there be a "Royal Commission" into the nuclear industry in SA when Kevin Scarce has already announced the outcome of the commission on Radio 891 on 10 February.
What about Thorium in stead of Uranium? It produces far safer waste and has a lower risk of damage to the surrounding environment if it goes wrong. Australia has massive reserves of Thorium.
There a several matters that the highly polluting nuclear lobby don't want you to know about and this one has to be the con of the century in SA. Here's what a US’ uranium enrichment facility did to the ozone with its massive discharges of Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114) which has a global warming potential of 10,000 years? http://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/facility_data?tri_facility_id=42001PDCHGHOBBS&tri=TRIQ1
Other industries endeavoured to abide by the Montreal Protocol on CFCs to mitigate emissions of chlorofluorocarbons while the nuclear industry revealed its utter contempt for the environment, climate change and the fragility of the planet. Outrageously they chopped holes in the ozone for decades and with impunity.
Nuclear power, uranium mining, enrichment, fuel rods, waste storage.
It all has lots of risk.
Sooo much risk that the benefits have to be huge.
The benefits have to be for the workers and for Australia.
Not for any company or foreign interests.
Read, not for any foreign interests or big business.
Benefits have to be for Australians.
We dont want any other countries waste, no matter what dodgy
deal or what contract or how much money is promised or paid.
If any country buys fuel rods then they bought it and
its a no returns item. We do not want nuclear fuel waste
from 7 billion people in the world.
Or we simply do not sell uranium to the world.(better option)
We keep it in house for the betterment of Australia.
Do not allow in anyway Australia to be used by the
rest of the world regarding nuclear power.
I love how people call nuclear power 'clean energy' when it leaves a lethal radioactive by-product that last thousands of years. Let other countries store their own waste: there is a reason why they want to ship it off their shores and to Australia. Look at Fukashima 2011- 20 mile exclusion zone, mutated insects- well worth it for clean energy!
Too many people don't understand the long term (thousands of years) responsibilities of mining, processing, generating power from and storing the waste from Uranium. There are now alternative solar, wind, geothermal and wave power generators for domestic and base load power supplies. Why would you risk more Chernobyls or Fukushimas for short term profit? Radiation kills both quickly and slowly all those who are contaminated.
Coal fired fired power station 1000 MW, annual releases.
1. Pollution large tonnages released into the air Carbon dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides , also large site of radionuclides as radium concentrates in coal.
2.1000 MW power station per year requires 2.5 million tonnes of coal approx 38,000 railway trucks.
3. Ash about 12,000 railway trucks plus fly ash.
------------------
1000 MW Nuclear power station
1. No Combustion products, , it emits low level radioactivity.
2. Requires 30 tonnes of enriched uranium
3. Produces 1 Cubic meter of waste
Vested interested is the problem Nuclear waste was never a real problem take to the French who are 99% Nuclear.
This should be a good one for workcover especially with the current or new legislation coming in to effect 1st of July 2015 Hope it covers all employees to their benefit & not the employers benefit hate see who is going to cover any disaster, illnesses, etc from this type of employment , mining etc.
May those who promote the nuclear industry be the first to parent the deformed children of the future who will be the legacy of this poisonous industry!
I have been a supporter of the complete nuclear cycle from mining right through to generation of electricity. S.A. would become the centre of a nuclear industry not only for our own electricity generation but also that of other states as older coal burning generators reach the end of their economic lives. If a uranium enrichment plant was commissioned here, nuclear fuel rods could be supplied to other countries. Control over the usage of the rods could be maintained by the refusal to supply further rods to recalcitrant users for non return of spent material. With the closure of Holden Cars, Ford Motors as well as Toyota in Australia, the country needs a bold new vision to take us forward to future prosperity. A fully integrated nuclear industry would be a huge start. As a nuclear industry cannot be developed over night. Urgent action should be taken right now. A Royal Commission is a step in the right direction.
Over coming decades, SA should develop the full nuclear fuel cycle: mining uranium, uranium enrichment, uranium reprocessing, fuel rod manufacture, nuclear waste storage, nuclear desalination and nuclear electricity generation. SA could become the clean energy capital of the world once we start using our world's biggest uranium reserves and our world's best nuclear waste disposal site for our own as well as the world's benefit. I've been waiting for 17 years for some political leadership on this issue and I congratulate Jay Weatherill for at last giving some. People, especially those opposed to nuclear have to open their minds on this and they need to answer just one question. If they believe that nuclear is too dirty, too dangerous, too costly, too slow, too every darn thing then: Why are 32 countries continuing to generate 15% of world electricity in 436 reactors, those countries and 17 others are building 70 reactors as I write, 174 have been planned and 301 proposed around the world for the future? These figures have come from the October 2014 newsletter of the World Nuclear Association. The world is on a huge nuclear build programme. Australia should be part of that programme. Nuclear for SA [ the full cycle] is a no brainer.
My husband was contaminated after having to crawl on the ground at the Olympic Dam Expansion project. He was not the only one who was contaminated at that time. He died 7yrs later from a cancer you get from exposure to uranium. This is my story to help raise awareness that the mine needs to close.
http://vimeo.com/106462257