Disclaimer
http://www.antinuclear.net does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any information’s, content contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained on this website.
Advertisements
2 Comments »
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net/
FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia Read the published submissions on the Parliamentary website. Read the SUMMARIES of submissions here.
After Fukushima, Don’t Believe the Spin on Thorium Being a Greener Nuclear Option
Don’t believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option http://tinyurl.com/zk8jt3a Ecologist: thorium is merely a way of deflecting attention and criticism from the dangers of the uranium fuel cycle and excusing the pumping of more money into the industry. It produces less radioactive waste and more power but it remains unproven on a commercial scale. ‘Even if thorium technology does progress to the point where it might be commercially viable, it will face the same problems as conventional nuclear: it is not renewable or sustainable and cannot effectively connect to smart grids. The technology is not tried and tested, and none of the main players is interested. Thorium reactors are no more than a distraction.
*********************************
Plasma Physicist Dr. Makhijani Explains Thorium & Fukushima with Helen Caldicott https://youtu.be/ygZFdTNbvMw Interview from June 2012: Dr. Arjun Makhijani “plasma physicist” http://tinyurl.com/htjl8jq Join Helen Caldicott discussing the challenges of proposed thorium reactors and why solar power saves more money than nuclear while saving lives. http://tinyurl.com/gvtc2f2
*****************************
http://ieer.org/ Institute for Environment & Environmental Research
***************************
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy http://tinyurl.com/jpsuufo
**************************
To listen to Dr. Caldicott’s earlier interviews with Dr. Makhijani, click HERE Best of 2008/2009: Dr. Arjun Makhijani on a clean-energy future without nuclear power, oil or coal http://tinyurl.com/z6b48l7
*****************************
HERE: Dr. Arjun Makhijani on the stunning potential for solar, wind and other green energy to replace fossil fuels and nuclear power right now http://tinyurl.com/j9s93mh
***************************
and HERE. Why nuclear power is not the solution to global warming, and how renewables can power everythinghttp://tinyurl.com/hg72gf2
*************************
Did you know every thorium reactor would require a reprocessing center? Also #Thorium Reactor would be enriching bomb grade material and present a bigger proliferation problem. Also problems getting heat sink from the intense heat that is generated and you have to worry about capturing all the deadly isotopes that are created. Have not worked out the kinks of sodium circuit boards frying.
**********************
Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.’
******************************
All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic byproducts and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives. Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but ‘include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters’.
******************************
Tickell says thorium reactors would not reduce the volume of waste from uranium reactors. ‘It will create a whole new volume of radioactive waste from previously radio-inert thorium, on top of the waste from uranium reactors. Looked at in these terms, it’s a way of multiplying the volume of radioactive waste humanity can create several times over.’
******************************
Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – ‘so these are really U-233 reactors,’ says Karamoskos.
******************************
This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium’s superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste. http://tinyurl.com/zk8jt3a
******************************
Check out Helen Caldicott Playlist http://tinyurl.com/hgbxqv6 is an Australian physician, author, and anti-nuclear advocate who has founded several associations dedicated to opposing the use of nuclear power, depleted uranium munitions, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation, war, and…
******************************
For the latest Follow Strontium Milks ☠ https://www.youtube.com/user/Fukushim… MsMilkytheclown1 ☠ https://www.youtube.com/user/MsMilkyt… MsMilkytheclown News shortly after Fukushima https://www.youtube.com/user/MsMilkyt…
EVENT
20 September GLOBAL #CLIMATE STRIKE
PETITION
Free Julian Assange, before it’s too late. Sign to STOP the USA Extradition
Pages
- 1.This month
- Action Australia
- Disclaimer
- NUCLEAR DUMPING
- SUBMISSIONS to 2019 INQUIRIES
- – Alternative media
- – marketing nuclear power
- business and costs
- – Spinbuster 2011
- Nuclear and Uranium Spinbuster – theme for June 2013
- economics
- health
- radiation – ionising
- safety
- Aborigines
- Audiovisual
- Autralia’s Anti Nuclear Movement – Successes
- climate change – global warming
- energy
- environment
- Fukushima Facts
- future Australia
- HEALTH and ENVIRONMENT – post Fukushma
- media Australia
- Peace movement
- politics
- religion – Australia
- religion and ethics
- Religion and Ethics
- secrets and lies
- spinbuster
- Spinbuster
- wastes
- Australian links
- ethics and nuclear power – Australia
- nuclear medicine
- politics – election 2010
- secrecy – Australia
- weapons and war
Advertisements
Blogroll
Categories
- 1
- ACTION
- Audiovisual
- AUSTRALIA – NATIONAL
- Christina reviews
- Christina themes
- General News
- Olympic Dam
- Opposition to nuclear
- reference
- religion and ethics
- Resources
- TOPICS
- aboriginal issues
- art and culture
- business
- civil liberties
- climate change – global warming
- culture
- energy
- environment
- health
- history
- legal
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- people
- personal stories
- politics
- politics international
- religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets and lies
- spinbuster
- technology
- uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- water
- Wikileaks
- women
September 8 – Adelaide – Symposium on South Australia’s nuclear history:
Link for registration: https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/south-australias-nuclear-past-present-and-future-tickets-48944656786?aff=ebdssbdestsearch
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/308523099705836
also:
Black Mist Burnt Country at National Museum in Canberra 24 August – 18 November
http://www.blackmistcountry.com.au
http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/black-mist-burnt-country
Hi,
on this website you summarize my submission to the federal inquiry as included below. I don’t think your summary is a correct reflection of my text and I refer your readers to the original document, which is available on the inquiry website. For example, I clearly make the point in my submission that there is currently no business case for nuclear power in Australia. Furthermore I do not say there or think that Fukushima has resulted in greater nuclear safety measures. Neither do I make the point that Australia should have nuclear power, because we export uranium or because other nations have it.
In general I find your categorization into pro and anti unhelpful. I don’t see my submission in either camp.
Regards, Heiko Timmers
—————–
“Timmers, Heiko (63) Says Australia should have nuclear power because it exports uranium, because other nations have it, because it is low carbon, and with it, Australia can help against nuclear weapons proliferation – and because Australia needs to be ready for Generation IV reactors.
Says Australia should have the full nuclear fuel cycle. Present debate is too “emotional”. Says Fukushima resulted in greater nuclear safety measures. Sees nuclear power as making Australia more important internationally.
Recommends developing renewable energy. Recommends setting up a nuclear waste import industry. Recommends “we intensify our participation in the Generation IV International Forum ……reinvigoratie university training and research in nuclear engineering. …Our active participation in the global nuclear fuel cycle with uranium exports and spent fuel storage services, thus taking ethical and environmental responsibility for the planet and helping to limit carbon-dioxide emissions, may benefit our international standing. “
Enthuses about the future of molten salt reactors.”
—————–