Anyway, I think Australia would really benefit from this concept.

No, we don't really. Existing Uranium mining operations recently allowed a 2 million litre spill of radioactive concentrated sulphuric acid to spill into a world heritage national park. Extensive radionuclide handling in an area that is also a large food bowl for the world would not really be a good idea. Infrastructure operations of that kind are an accident waiting to happen. Any enrichment occurring on our soil would also make us a target and increase the already large intelligence apparatus that operates here.

They need to get it approved just once (scale won't influence the rate of NIMBYism, those opposed to the repository would oppose it at any scale),

Well I oppose it and uranium mining because the incompetence of the mining industry getting yellowcake and having industrial accidents where they just say "sowwy" and continue on mining as if nothing happened continues. Given that why should I expect any more than that. They already conduct acid leach mining here which is illegal in the US and Russia - but no worries, just do it in Australia because they're ignorant pie eaters that wouldn't care anyway. Fuck that, I care, we were forced to mine yellow cake and now the world wants to send it back because Dixie Lee Ray was full of shit.

My concern is that Australia is the driest continent in the world and the water table our farmers use would be put at extreme risk from such a proposal so there are plenty of sensible reasons to object to this proposal. *ANY* accident would expose all Australians to radioisotope analogues. Sea transport of the many thousands of tons of this material would also introduce the risk of shipping accidents and security hazzards in transit. So calling it NIMBYism is just a way of making excuses for not knowing all the issues and I'm fairly certain you are reasonable enough to recognise there are more than just the issues I've mentioned here.

they'll get a HUGE amount of income for little work,

Our other markets dwarf this, we just don't need it.

and they'll pretty much have nuclear power suppliers held hostage thereafter, as none are going to want to go back to having to try to get local permission to build a repository after their public has been told that it wouldn't happen.

So why on earth would you let it come into my realm. If it does, I will lobby harder than ever to put staggeringly unfair prices on accessing these facilities. Besides why would the countries give up their fuel reserves to Australia when they can use them, themselves? Hawke is just playing a role put to him by S er co so that they get a return on the rail line infrastructure they built through the dead heart. Waste arrives in Adelaide or Darwin, travels by rail to where ever the waste goes.

Aboriginals have final say about what is done with their land, but a "intervention" a few years ago change their legal title on the land so the government can now *tell* them they are getting a spent fuel repository. So plenty of profit for everyone else except the Australian tax payer - so no thanks.

And they'll have a tremendous resource for any sort of future isotope or fuel refining that might prove economically viable. I mean, imagine that... picture having all of the world's spent fuel, and then having a technical solution or geopolitical situation that makes it cheaper to get fuel from the waste than to mine new uranium. You're suddenly the near-exclusive nuclear fuel supplier to the entire world. Or supplier of medical isotopes, or isotopes for goods irradiation, or whatever else the future may demand.

Well, so what? We already are a near-exclusive nuclear fuel supplier to the entire world (I think South Africa is another) and we maintain on small 10 megawatt reactor for doing those other things so there is no real benefit.

America would do far better for handling this properly because you have Granite mountains that have been geologically stable. Why wouldn't America just build the facility that Yucca tries to be so that she can still have access to her fuel reserves.

Right now it looks as though Australians, many of whom objected to uranium mining in the first place because they feared the things that have now eventuated are now being asked to take this material back in a highly toxic form to maintain the rest of the world voracious energy consumption.

It's just a bad idea, but one that corporate interests are using mouth pieces like Hawke for so it looks like a fait accompli has gone through due process.

Given that what the GP said is true, that there is no evidence that praying makes any difference whatsoever, it would make more sense to instead spend the time doing something that does make a difference. If all the hours wasted in the world praying, and going to church were instead spent helping fix an elderly neighbours fence, doing a charity run, or learning about medicine to become a doctor, the world would be a whole lot better place.

It seems fitting to point this out: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/art...

"It's not that your wrong, it's just that when every response to emotion is biochemically and electrically analysed, we will all still be human beings, and the suffering or joy won't be anly less real. Is there anything wrong with praying because you are happy or grateful?"

I think I can answer this. Yes, there is. You see, people pray because they want to pretend they're doing something good, they want to satisfy themselves that they're achieving something.

keh? So just to get this clear, you object to someone spending their time praying because they are happy or grateful. Have you considered that that statement is quite ridiculous.

Effectively it's an excuse you give to yourself to either give credit to yourself for doing something you didn't, or because you can't be arsed to do anything more worthwhile.

Would you be refering to my prayers for strength to make it to the end of three hundred pages of anti-terrorism legislation and have enough energy to write letters to politicians to lobby the impact out of it in defence of my fellow citizens human rights?

So by what ethical framework are you judging what is worthwhile?

And who the fuck are you to judge me?

Given that what the GP said is true, that there is no evidence that praying makes any difference whatsoever, it would make more sense to instead spend the time doing something that does make a difference.

Well it isn't given, it's just an assumption, however I'll be happy to review any peer-reviewed science you can supply.

If all the hours wasted in the world praying, and going to church were instead spent helping fix an elderly neighbours fence, doing a charity run, or learning about medicine to become a doctor, the world would be a whole lot better place.

What about feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, diseased, alcoholics, domestic violence victims and so on. For all of the hypocrisy of the catholic church it engages in many acts of charity on a day to day basis as an institutionalised organisation. Newsflash: They all pray.

So yes, praying is a bad thing, it is selfish self-appeasement that uses up time that could instead be invested in real actual genuinely good causes that actually make people's lives better, rather than exist just to pretend you're making someone elses life better.

You mean, like TV?

It's an excuse for inaction, or for assuaging guilt and nothing more.

Perhaps for some, for others it is the opposite. I've found people to be incredibly variable.

Then perhaps I might elaborate on my trolling. Yes, I'm an asshole.

Yes you are, but it doesn't mean you have to be cruel as well because you certainly aren't being kind.

Sometimes that is what is needed.

Tell that to someone who is completely broken, alone and tortured by circumstances, or in some cases, actually tortured. Your words would offer them nothing and the world has become a little uglier for you having uttered them. I pray people mod you down, but, I'll probably be modded down for that.

Prayer is not just some harmless little habbit. It's woo. One of a large number of similar superstitions. While many may have conviction in the power of prayer, every scientific investigation and even just basic common sense says it does squat.

It's not that your wrong, it's just that when every response to emotion is biochemically and electrically analysed, we will all still be human beings, and the suffering or joy won't be anly less real. Is there anything wrong with praying because you are happy or grateful?

Common sense is subjective for an individual.

People *die* because they trust in the power of prayer rather than medicine, just as they die because they get suckered into homeopathy or crystal healing or a hundred other piece of nonsense. Worse, children die because their parents are convinced of the power of prayer.

Well if someone's prays for healing comes in the form of medicine or technology and they refuse it then they are just ignorant fools. If some charlatan convinces someone they have a cure when they don't then that is immoral and sometimes criminal and should be persued as such. If a child's life is on the line when there is the means to save a life then that is also a welfare matter.

This scientifically-nonsensical rubbish needs to be pointed out.

Well you may think it is an intelligent thing to say, however it isn't a very wise thing to say. There other other bodies of knowledge besides science. Science has not even explained 'consciousness' yet, prayer is probably still something that is beyond testing as I can really see you developing a way to measure sincerity.

What are you going to do walk up to someone who has lost a loved one, or is praying for this ninth lung operation to stabilise enough for a lung transplant, or a domestic violence sufferer or one one else in a fucked up situation to rate the effectiveness of thier prayer on a scale from one to ten.

It doesn't matter if it is scientifically proven or not.

Your opinion on the matter is as frightening as any Islam, Christian or Jewish fundamentalist. Rabid Fundamentalist Dawkinism.

It's followers need to be challenged into providing verifiable, repeatable, non-cherry-picked evidence in support of their superstition - and, if no such evidence can be provided, then the followers need to be convinced of their error.

Then why don't you fork out some cash from your own pocket to defend human rights issues? Answer the prayers around the world for people suffering under tyrants and you will have your evidence. Go answer the prayers of those who are starving or sleeping in the rain and you will have your evidence. They prayed you would be magnanamous and stop being, as you described yourself, such an asshole.

And if they remain convicted in spite of all evidence to the contary then it is the duty of all right-thinking people to make a mockery of them, so that others may see the error before they too fall prey.

Sometimes all that is needed to give a person the will to survive is prayer. Would you make a mockery of a torture or war survivor who said they prayed a deal with god so that they could live?

Prayer is something of an odd case, in that even those who claim to believe in the power usually act as if they do not. They will pray for their loved one's to be healed, but take them to the hospital regardless.

Because they are not idiots. After that they pray nothing will go wrong in the surgery, that the doctor won't make a mistake, that it will be a success and they keep praying whether their loved one lives or dies. If they pray for an answer and it came then you would be stupid to ignore it. That's just stupid.

There are a few exceptions who die for their superstition, but these are the exception.

Well that is the definition of a fundamentalist. Will you kill me for my superstitions, like a fundamentalist would?

That does not excuse prayer: It only makes the error more apparent.

Your entire post smacks of the kind of moral superiority that has started many a murderous religious crusade.

and Drop Bears, hideous, sneaky, Drop Bears. It's cruel to convince people, especially tourists, that they don't exist. It just makes them prey.

Facebook, give and give and give data away and people want them to share more. Poor widdle facebwook!

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

There is no need to burn the books when you can just remove them from the shelves. The great thing about ereaders too is that all you reading habits can be tracked and the distribution of ideas can also be limited.

All that Amazon has shown is how to achieve that end.

Scientists and techs are portrayed as either evil or socially inept in the movies. Why would anyone value any form of education that led to that? As long the perception exists people aren't going to value maths, or any other, education that lead them to be enablers of society.

And those perceptions are bought to us by the same people who want DRM everywhere so they continue to harvest money for crap movies that have nothing new.

and if their creators exist.

it's mostly crap, with ads.

A scary thought for humans either way.

great video - thanks for the link.

I think the term you're looking for is "burnup", not efficiency.

Yes, current reactor designs burn 0.3% of the xkcd comic's uranium, clear showing how disingenuous it was to refer to it when talking about reactors.

PWR use 0.3% of the available energy density. This brings us back to Storm van Leeuwen and Smith whose analysis was to asses the net energy return of the Nuclear industry. For the expected 300TWh's output of a new AP-1000 energetic estimates for construction of a nuclear power plant is somewhere between 11TWh and 35TWh, energy cost for demolition around 55TWh to 70TWh, that's around a third before you start. Yet you still have to factor dismantling and clean up of the core alone 5.6TWh's - 16TWh's. They talk in Peta-joules but I've done the conversions to put it in a frame of reference that will be easier to understand.

Your numbers are off.

Your point was the amount damage done to the land from mining and conveniently overlooks that 3000SqKm of land that has been rendered useless from Chernobyl. The OP said Coal plants cannot do that kind of damage. and you replied Coal mines and coal mining can however.

I will make them unambiguous for you. It takes approximately 75,000,000 tons of processing soft ore from the earth to fuel one reactor. I say approximately because it may take more rock processing because the yeild is lower.

It will take more energy to process granite than to process sandstone. As for my numbers...

Even if I accept your dubious claim

Using a conservative energy expenditure of 1528Kwh per ton of rock (containing Uranium) you have to process 500 tons of rock, that's 763500Kwh's, to produce one kilo of Uranium. Assuming an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 AND assuming you have a high grade ore that's roughly 763Gwh's per ton and you need 160tons for your first core. Even before enrichment you've consumed over 100TWhs without a 1/3 core refuel every ten years for forty and we haven't even factored energetic costs of a spent fuel containment facility or the logistics of moving spent fuel safely.

Like Oil, all the cheap uranium is gone.

(and the link was not illuminating),

Well it doesn't matter if you don't want to read it. It has been peer reviewed and not even the Nuclear Industry itself has attempted, but has been unable to refute it with a similar peer reviewed document. This is the science on the nuclear industry itself, if you can't accept the findings then you will remain uninformed and unable to challenge your beleifs.

then that's still a net positive.

Today's reactor design have a roughly 40 year life span. During the early phase of the plants life span most of the operational issues were resolved so that in the reactors middle age it has a relatively trouble free operation. Now that the reactors are approaching the end of thier life span the materials that the reactor were built with are becoming embrittled, corroded, seals begin to fail. So operators (as seen in Fukushima) squeeze everything they can get because once that reactor is shut down - it's a tomb that cannot be disassembled for ten to a hundred years, good bye income, hello ongoing operational costs, hello cobalt 60, iron 55, tritium, carbon 14 and calcium 41 amongst others. It takes ten to fifteen times the energy cost of a coal or gas power plant to dismantle. Who do you think will wear those energetic costs?

Then there is the CRUD - Chalk River Unidentified Deposits, where a lethal combination of highly radioactive fission and actinide elements from leaking fuel rods in the reactor core itself were discovered. Every reactor has it and *safe* dismantling of the 450 odd reactors worldwide will have to deal with a energy expenditure of almost half of the entire facilities construction on the core alone and we havent even started talking about the cooling water and radioactive hydrogen that is just dumped into the ocean. Demolishing a decommissioned nuclear reactor has not successfully been performed safely on a large scale yet. Nuclear industry proponents tout the amount of energy that can be extracted from a gram of Uranium but rarely factor the *Net Energy Return* of the Nuclear fuel cycle, associated infrastructure and the long term storage of toxic waste. Profit only occurs if someone else bares the expense of yet another externality.

So, there's still 6 orders of magnitude in there.

Well, so much for your xkcd comic then because 6 orders fit's on that page and your entire not_thought_out post only talks of the energy density of the fuel and not our technologies limited ability to utilize it. Even with the energetic advantage it has ultimately the existing materials technology fails to deliver a reactor with a long enough service life and good enough reactor availability to justify yet another third of the energy output of the reactor over its lifetime. So, it's awesome technology however ultimately pointless it is.

it's been done.

I provided you with science in a peer reviewed document to support my claims.

does DU warfare count?

What the fuck has that got to do wich nuclear power?

It's a product of the nuclear fuel chain.

Again, that's got nothing to do with nuclear power.

Well the first reactors were producing plutonium, and the impetus for that was producing bombs, producing electricity came much later, so it has a lot to do with it. Until you have a place to store this stuff permanently and a reactor that can use it as fuel, so that it is too expensive to use as weapons, Nuclear industry products will continue to be affordable weapons and medical isotopes. You can be fucking emotional about it but it will still remain as a nuclear industry product.

You can't power the entire world without accidents. Not going to happen.

What I can't accept is not learning from those accidents and evolving the industry. You may be ignorant about it however, I am not.

If you refuse to accept nuclear accidents, then you are willingly sacraficing far more workers in other industries to satisfy your fear. I'm glad you're OK with that casualness because I'm not.

None of the NRC's design recomendations for reducing the possibility of reactor accidents, sourced from a nuclear industry panel that included reactor manufacturers such as Westinghouse, General Electric, Bechtel, Sargent & Lundy, Northern States Power and Commonwealth Edison have made it into the standardized reactor designs approved by the 2005 Energy act. All design enhancements made to the standardized design, the AP1000 *reduce* the thermal containment ratio of concrete in the plant design because that is the larges input cost to building the reactor plant. TMI proved just how important that is.

This essentially shows that the Nuclear industry doesn't really care about the safety of the populations around it as it is an externality handled (in America) by the Price Anderson act. I'm glad you're OK with that casualness because I'm not.

Nothing is sace when scaled up far enough. It would be foolish to claim otherwise. I'm claiming nuclear is safer than anything else, however.

Only because you don't understand the risks and impact of the biological consequences. Any sane person who did would be lobbying for drastic improvements in the industry such as a geologically stable spent fuel containment facility.

That's absoloute rot. I challenge you to find 40GWh of electricity for 70k.

The peer reviewed paper I supplied you was peer reviewed in a proper scientific manner using U.S government standards for energetic industrial process measurement. So until you come up with a better argument then I think this one alone is enough to render any further investment in commercial nuclear power as pointless. I challenge you to read it.

If it took that much to extract it, then it will cost at least that much in energy cost to buy it.

Correct, Nuclear industry finance is indeed a tangled web.

So no, rather than languish in my ignorance of the facts, I'm making an educated decision

No.

Yes.

You are unable to refute my arguments on other subjects such as mining, enrichment, reactor disposal and the energetic costs of these activities. Nor have you shown any knowledge about the future infrastructure requirements or consequences of things such as enrichment which has leaks over 450,000Kg of CFC114 into the environment every year since the inception of the Montreal protocol in 1995. CFC 114 attacks the ozone layer, the ozone layer that protects that algae that makes THE OXYGEN WE BREATHE.

Your rather predictable lack of arguments all revolve around Nuclear reactor technology and is a very narrow understanding. I suggest you broaden the scope of your education by exploring these things instead of languishing in the moral superiority granted to you by group think that suggests that you can answer "No" as an argument to all these important issues when you are unable to challenge them.

Yes, the type of group think led to the Fukushima disaster.