Community discussion: safety

The Citizens’ Jury identified that topics such as health, geology, seismicity, terrorism, transport and looking at potential impacts on flora and fauna are important for South Australians to discuss. Tell us which areas associated with the safety of a nuclear waste storage and disposal facility are most important to you, and why?

Comments closed

Peter Biggs

11 Oct 2016

Nuclear waste dump represents a short term answer to SA economic problems but would present us with a major headache in the future. First on a basic human scale humans always eventually make mistakes whether it be by poor design or anything else. This is why we have an enquiry everytime a mistake is made to find out what went wrong. When we make a mistake with a Nuclear Waste Dump though no matter how big or small all the gains we make in the short term will be gone. Effectively SA will become an economic waste land, outsiders will see SA as that place that had the nuclear accident. Real Estate would plummet, any integrity in our food production would be gone we really would have no future, as it is until this is put away I would advise not to buy real estate in SA, nuclear waste dumps do add to your housing values.
Any business person apart from those in the nuclear industry can see the next flaw in the proposed nuclear waste dump. If by some miracle an incident did not happen in say the first 20 years many other providers would seek to duplicate the model of the waste dump to get some of that good dollar. The result would be that the economic boon would quickly reduce and soon disappear this is the very nature of business. Thus SA would have the burden of nuclear waste with none of the economic gain, tax payers would then have to step into maintain what would an incredibly expensive facility. I could go on but I won't for now, this proposal is short sighted study history to get some perspective on what can go wrong not just in the nuclear industry but all human interactions.
I Love my state, I love Adelaide we are better than this. First state to give women the vote....not first nuclear waste dump in the Southern Hemisphere.

Steve Charles

10 Oct 2016

No matter what any of us say, and no matter whatever conclusions the jury's are manipulated to come up with, Weatherill has no doubt already drafted his response to the whole process which will state that this has been a triumph of democracy and that the people have spoken, including the indigenous community, and guess what, the overriding sentiment is that the high level nuclear waste dump is to go ahead. I am just waiting to hear it. Then what do we do?

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Steve Charles

14 Oct 2016

Hi Steve, we understand your concerns. Certainly no decision has been made on this topic - the Citizens' Jury is a balanced process and the Jurors have control over which witnesses they choose to hear from, and what topics they choose to discuss. The Jury represents a wide range of views on the topic of increasing SA's nuclear activity and the report in which they produce will be a key input into the Government's decision. Don't forget you can view the Citizens' Jury livestream and video library at any time (head to the Citizens' Jury Two page) so you can watch the proceedings and see what information the Jury have access to. Many thanks.

adrian hill

06 Oct 2016

Note: The comment below was by Carolyn Wild, not Adrian as I accidentally used his facebook account

adrian hill

06 Oct 2016

I agree with Simon. There's always the risk of natural disasters so we can't be certain that the stored nuclear waste will be 100% safe and contained.

Simon George

06 Oct 2016

I see this as an accident waiting to happen. No matter what we plan for, something will go wrong somewhere.

Steve Charles > Simon George

10 Oct 2016

Yes. If it can happen it will happen, and at the worst possible time. The people of SA are being suckered and we should all stand up and say NO.

Claire Catt

30 Sep 2016

With gale force winds, king tides, torrential rain and flooding, twin tornadoes and statewide blackouts, it's just as well we didn't have thousands of tonnes of toxic nuclear waste sitting on ships in the Spencer Gulf and stashed around the State in temporary nuclear waste dumps, as proposed by Jay Weatherill!

mark anderson

29 Sep 2016

Why don't we look at salt reactors for powering our state?
With salt nuclear reactors we could make a fortune processing other countries nuclear waste. This could give us very cheap energy. We could bring more to our states economy by producing enough energy to export to other states.

The fission of nuclear material in a salt reactor is complete. This means the waste is safe as the majority if not all of the radioactive material has been used. The waste is then at background levels of radiation within 100 years rather than thousands.

The reactors themselves are incredibly safe too. If the system shuts down for any reason the reactor chamber empties all by itself in to a separate tank and fission ceases immediately. No pressurised radioactive water and no explosions.

Noel Wauchope > mark anderson

10 Oct 2016

Thorium and molten salt reactors – full of problems. claims do not stand up to critical scrutiny, and that these technologies have significant drawbacks including:
 the very high costs of technology development, construction and operation.
 marginal benefits for a thorium fuel cycle over the currently utilised uranium /
plutonium fuel cycles
 serious nuclear weapons proliferation hazards
 the danger of both routine and accidental releases of radiation, mainly from
continuous ‘live’ fuel reprocessing in MSRs
 the very long lead time for significant deployment of LFTRs of the order of half a century – rendering it irrelevant in terms of addressing current or medium term energy supply need….https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/thorium-and-molten-salt-reactors-full-of-problems/

Steven McColl > mark anderson

11 Oct 2016

Mark Anderson from CDR McColl here (my handle reflects that many of us have not read the NFCRC report – it is long and I am still reading it lol). Noel have you read the NFCRC report?
.

Mark and Noel thank you for your posts regarding the Molten Salt Reactors (MSR).

Noel we should take your contribution here onboard - because in a group together we’re best to take all options forward right up to through the design stage without rushing to pre-conceived notions – deleting design options only at the end of the design stage.
.
That’s why nuclear energy needs to be included in the energy mix as much as Solar, Hydro, King coal and others.
.

Mark I liked your post because it was informative to engage those uninformed (I too still learning also about the MSR).
.

Mark Anderson, since reading your post about the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) after reading about the MSR in The Weekend Australian 8-9 Oct 2016 by Ian Napier from St Peters South Australia, I found it interesting.
.

Unlike solid-fuel reactors, there is no potential damage from fissioning Xenon gas to fuel rods in the Molten Salt Reactor because there aren’t any fuel rods in the MSR!
.

And at the bottom of the MSR core there is a fan-cooled ‘freeze plug’ so that:
.

(a) If during a ‘BOUNDING EVENT’ the molten salt coolant gets too hot (over the 700 deg. C normal operating temperature) this freeze plug at the bottom of the reactor melts simply emptying the molten-salt nuclear-fuel mix into emergency dump tanks where fission cannot continue to occur.
.

(b) IF ELECTRICITY IS LOST, the cooling-fan fails allowing the same freeze plug to melt then emptying the contents of the molten-salt nuclear fuel mix into the emergence dump tanks where fission cannot continue to occur also.
.

Nb: (a) and (b) above is true when the ‘fast neutron’ spectrum is adopted eg: for burning Plutonium-239 from weapons stock. because when the fuel-salt mix expands into the dump-tanks it expands so the fission density is less.
.
More so, when the ‘slow neutron’ spectrum is adopted because, there’s the Graphite moderator for the slow neutron spectrum is inside the reactor core not in the dump-tanks.
.

Aside: For those that don’t know Graphite is used as a ‘moderator’ to slow the kinetic speed of the neutrons enough to increase the probability of capture by slow neutron fuel nuclei for the splitting such as U-235 nuclei.
.

I like it!
-
And Mark do not worry, I just went to the link that Noel Wauchope referenced here under your post.
.
I read it and the internet reference link starts with the following: 'Thorium: Not ‘green’, not ‘viable’, and not likely’. Posted on the internet I see written by Oliver Tickell, April / May 2012. (with due respect to Noel - thank you Noel – I do not blame you, another Green spiel without engineering anecdotal, theoretical or empirical evidence.
-
Noel you must have been searching the internet for days to find something to resent Mark Anderson’s post telling all about the MSR! – so from all your searching, why did you not read about the MSR and learn about it?

********
First claim by Oliver Tickel: Thorium and molten salt reactors – full of problems. WHAT PROBLEMS PLEASE?
.
Second claim by Oliver Tickel: "Do not stand up to critical scrutiny": WHAT SCRUTINY?
BY WHOM?
By Admiral Hyman Rickover?
By Admiral Dave Johnston? It was Admiral Dave Johnson at Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) that recently had a model of Russia’s mighty new 13500t Sevorodvinsk (Yasen-class) submarine built outside his office in the common area. So that all could see this excellent submarine. I have seen it. Have you? NO.
.
Now, Third claim by Oliver Tickel: 'and that these technologies': Answer: WHAT TECHNOLOGIES? (generalisation).
.
Next claim by Oliver Tickel: 'have significant drawbacks including: 'the very high costs of technology development, construction and operation'.
.
Answer: What very high costs of construction? mmm note the added ‘very’ adjective put in.
Answer: What very high costs of construction?
Answer: What very high costs of operation?
.
Next claim by Oliver Tickel:
'marginal benefits for a thorium fuel cycle over the currently utilised uranium /plutonium fuel cycles’
.
Answer: Noel and Oliver this is nonsene because the Thorium fuel-cycle or the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) fuel cycle has four fuel-cycle options as follows:
.

FIRST FUEL CYCLE OPTION for the MSR: Maximum conversion up to 1.07 (can bread 7% of the fuel it burns).
.

SECOND FUEL-CYCLE option for the MSR: Thorium-232 and Uranium fuel cycle (Th-232, beta decays to Protactinium, then into Uranium-233).
********
[Noel does the Oliver Tickel who posted the link that you referenced know what Thorium-232 is?]
********

THORIUM IN AUSTRALIA:
Because Australia has most of the World’s Thorium and all Thorium comes only in one isotope: Th-232.
India has the world’s second most Thorium.
And South Australia has about 10 kt (10 000t) in hard rock deposits, and including an operating mine at the Eucla basin NW of Adelaide – plus two Heavy mineral sand deposits of Thorium.
.

[A lot of these naysayers don’t put forward any demonstrated knowledge on anything nuclear]
********
.
THIRD FUEL-CYCLE cycle option for the MSR: Denatured “once-through” actinide burning.
.
FOURTH FUEL-CYCLE cycle option for the MSR: Actinide burning with “continuous recycling” or renewable energy – agreed?
Apparently this fourth option is favoured for the Generation IV MSR.
.

Nb: Co-generation is also offered by the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) because the high coolant outlet temperature of around 700 deg. C allows for Hydrogen production.
.

[Does Oliver Tickel who posted this rubbish on the internet know what co-generation means?]
[Does this same person (or do you Noel) know anything about the how an MSR actually works?]
[This is one of my favourite: How to get a 700 degree Celsius coolant-outlet temperature from Wind mills or Solar panels or Coal plants or Gas plants or Hydro plants?]
************************
I also like the MSR because unlike the Generation II Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) and Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) with the MSR there is no need to pressurise the reactors (up to around 15MPa) and associated plumbing to obtain boiling points up to around 325 degrees C to get good heat transfer into the Primary heat exchanger.
.

Because the fluoride salt in Molten Salt Reactor melts at around 400 deg. C (please check) and has a normal operating temperature of around 700 deg. C.
Apparently UF4 fuel, blended into a mix of NaF with Zr4 (are the preferred fluoride salts for the electricity option).

I could go further. . .
*****
.

Now here are some facts regarding the time-line of the MSR:
.

1944: Eugene Wigner argued for a Thermal breeder program using Th-232 as the fertile material and U-233 as the fissile material.
.
[Noel with due respect: Do you or Oliver Tickel know what fertile means? And do you or Oliver Tickel know what fissile means?]
.
Then later in 1944: Wigner’s protégé: Alvin Wienberg followed Wigner’s path at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
.
In 1947: Eugene Wigner proposes a fluid-fueled thorium reactor
.
1950: Alvin Weinberg becomes ORNL director
.
1952: The first Homogenous Reactor Experiment (HRE-1) finishes the design stage. And in the same year the construction stage of the HRE-1 is also completed.
.
1954: It is proposed to solve the problem of the B36 bomber from having to land, by keeping it in the air for longer periods to bomb the Soviets at short notice and therefor to propose the Aircraft Experimental Reactor (AER)to generate heat inside the core of the turbojet engines but with no compressor.
The ‘ARE’ successfully operated for a 1000 h cycle.
.
1958: The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) commenced following the success of the Aircraft Experimental Reactor (AER).
.
1959: AER convenes “Liquid fuels task force” to choose between the following liquid fuel reactor options:
(1) Aqueous homogeneous reactor,
(2) Liquid fluoride,
(3) Liquid-metal fuelled reactor
**********
ASIDE: At this time the successor to SSN-571 the highly successful USS Nautilus, a sodium-cooled fast neutron reactor was installed to make the most of the better conductivity of a liquid-metal coolant but was considered not so suitable for submarine partially due to the fact that sodium reacts violently when coming in contact with water.
.

- So the simple and reliable water-cooled PWR was adopted as the standard reactor for all US Naval submarines, right up to today with the S9G reactor in SSN-774 Virginia class.
Nb: The S9G reactor never needs refuelling!
US Navy reactor designation S9G. S: ‘Submarine platform’, 9: 9th generation, G: General electric design. Fuel: U-235.
.

And all US Naval Aircraft Carriers have followed suit, all being propelled by the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR).
.

US NUCLEAR FUELED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS: Currently the US Navy have ten, with a further three under construction being the ‘Gerald Ford class’ -around 100 000t displacement (or 100kt).
The Gerald Forde class Aircraft Carrier will be powered by the A1B reactor.
Fuel: U-235.
US Navy reactor designation A1B. A: Aircraft carrier platform, 1: 1st generation from the designer, B: Bechtel design].
*********

MSR timeline continued . .
.

1961: The design of the Molten Salt Reactor is successfully completed and construction begins of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE), later that year the construction was successfully completed.
.
1965: The MSRE went critical on June 01. [Noel do you know what ‘critical’ means in terms of atomic energy?]
.

And during this year the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) operated for four and one half years until it was shut down in Dec 1969, the success of the MSRE was that it was the first reactor to operate on all three fissile fuels: U-233, U-235 and Pu-239.
.

*********
[Noel do you or Oliver Tickel know what U-233 is? U-235 is? Pu-239? Know what these suffixes mean? Familiar with the Periodic table of elements? Noel I think the MSR is a brilliant option and for many good reasons.]
.
MSR timeline continued . .
.

1973: The AEC moved to cancel the MSRE, in part because Nixon politically wanted to commit to the Sodium-cooled Fast Neutron Reactor (SFR) because apparently Nixon after the Vietnam War wanted to appease the Soviets and use the SFR to burn Plutonium-239 from US weapons stockpiles (please check) Nixon’s motive.
But in part the AEC was heavily committed to the Sodium-cooled Fast neutron reactor (SFR) as a breeder reactor.
.

[Noel: do you know that nuclear reactors that have a breeding ratio >1.0 are ‘renewable energy’? Do you know how this works? So renewable energy is not just Solar and Wind turbines]

From 1973 onwards the MSR program has been continuing. . .
.

And since 1973 former NASA engineer Kirk Sorensen revived forgotten molten salt reactor (MSR) technology in the two-thousands, interest in the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) technology has been growing quickly.
.
Since 2011, four separate companies in North America have announced plans for the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) as follows:
.

a) Flibe Energy,
b) Transatomic Power,
c) Terrestrial Energy and
d) Martingale, Incorporated.
.
Other countries renewing interest in the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR): Japan, Russia, France and China.
.

So why this sudden interest in the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) technology, that dates back to the nineteen fifties?

.

The answer lies partially in the following:
.

- The phenomenal safety of the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)
- Lack of control over the magnitude and timing of energy input with the wind and solar options.
- Man-made climate change
- Electrical energy poverty.
- When Thorium-232 is used for fuel Thorium does not need enrichment, this is because all Thorium is Th-232.

The first point above: SAFETY OF THE MSR:
.

SAFETY: If the reactor gets hotter than 700 degrees C, as already mentioned above the molten liquid fuel-salt inside the reactor core becomes less dense, so as fission decreases due to the sparseness of neutrons flying around. And when the molten liquid fuel-salt cools, it becomes denser so fission increases.

The MSR is dynamically stable: heats up so fission decrease - cools down so fission increases.
***
SAFETY: An operator cannot even force a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) to overheat.
Because even if for some reason a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) were to overheat, the heat freeze-plug at the bottom of the reactor vessel dumps the fuel into the dump tanks.
***
SAFETY: Nonetheless, should the fuel-salt in the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) overheat then it would melt the freeze plug made of salts (as previously mentioned) at the base of the reactor core that is kept solid by a cooling fan. Then emptying the reactor into emergency dump tanks where the fuel can cool safely.
***
SAFETY: If electricity is lost, the cooling fan will turn off and allow the freeze plug at the base of the reactor core, to also melt, automatically emptying the reactor into the emergency dump tanks where it can no longer fission.
***
SAFETY: The neutron absorbing control-rods at the top of the reactor provide further control of the fission when lowered into the core.

***
SAFETY: The MSR does not need to be pressurised like the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) or Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) to raise the boiling point because a non-water coolant is adopted.
***

SAFETY: The MSR cannot have its fuel rods ‘melt-down’ because the Uranium-Fluoride blended with the molten Fluoride salts is already molten.
***
SAFETY: A test in the nineteen sixties in the United States showed that a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) can continue to run safely without operator intervention - even after intentional removal of a control rod during full operation.
***
SAFETY: Thermal coefficient: negative (no thermal runaways possible like that happened at both the Generation II Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) at Prypat Ukraine and Fukushima Daiichi Japan).
***
Now to be fair some DRAW BACKS of the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) as I understand:
.

-SOLUBILITY: Solubility of minor actinides and lanthanides in molten fluoride salt-fulL for actinide management with high actinide concentrations.
- WASTE: Still some nuclear fuel waste in the form of unburned actinides after continuous recycling
- EXTRA PLANT: Chemical processing plant required.
.
SOME FEATURES OF THE MSR:
- SIMPLICITY: No solid fuel rods, no Xenon gas problems, no fabrication of fuel rods required and no enrichment required for the U-235 option.
- RENEWABLE ENERGY: The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) allows for actinide feeds.
-PLUTONIUM-239 burn: For reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles (when no graphite Moderator is used)
- HYDROGEN PRODUCTION: The high coolant outlet temperature allows for hydrogen production.
- NON PROLIFERATION: the waste from THE MSR is not useful for nuclear weapons since the MSR fissions most actinides and the short-fall in *transuranics because the atomic number of Thorium is only 90.
*transuranics that ‘beta-decay’ all having atomic numbers greater than ninety-two – Uranium’s atomic number.
.
Now some questions for you Noel and to Oliver Tickel’s nonsensical post onto the internet:
.
How does one expect to get a 700 degrees C. outlet coolant temperature from Wind turbines and Solar panels?
NOT POSSIBLE.
.
How does one generate around the 1GW of electricity required for: Petrochemical production and Hydrocarbon splitting from Windmill and Solar options?
.
Noel, what are Oliver Tickel's engineering solutions to burning Plutonium-239 from weapons stockpiles? NONE.

[Noel I do yield that point that using the Solar-thermal option solves the ‘intermittency’ problem of Solar because of the entropy in the salt overnight, but Solar-thermal only produces about 20 MW, the magnitude is too small.
However I do respect your concerns Noel.

Noel have you been to Oak Ridge Noel? Some students from the Navel Nuclear Power Training Command (NNPTC) in South Carolina where the US Navy grads go have been to Oak Ridge.
By educating ourselves about what is important to us makes us more powerful.

Noel and Mark thank you for your posts regarding the Molten Salt Reactor bringing this option forward as a team in the design stage working in a group. And one would think that Australians would take advantage of having most of the world’s thorium.

Kind regards CDR McColl.

Some references: http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/
IAEA document: ‘Roadmap to generation IV nuclear energy systems’ document#: GIF-002-00 Issued by the Dept. of Energy nuclear energy research advisory committee and the Generation IV international forum.

Steven McColl > mark anderson

11 Oct 2016

Good work Mark, thank you for introducing both the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) to the debate - you're welcome to check my post for a revised version- cheers.
CDR McColl.

Steven McColl > mark anderson

11 Oct 2016

And the Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactor (LFTR) as a subset to the MSR also - regards CDR McColl.

mark anderson > mark anderson

11 Oct 2016

Wow!!!
Cheers CDR McColl. That would normally be a bit of information over load for most but your reply was to the point and so informative.

You could add another benefit of using the salt water in the heat exchange when producing steam for generation. The by product is fresh water and salt. Cheap desalination plant for our state.

I really can see that this technology will take our state into the future. We could be getting free electricity for South Australia, paid for by the rest of the world.

Lets be the innovators not the sheep.

Steve Charles

29 Sep 2016

Well, today the Premier said regarding yesterday's state-wide power outage that "no infrastructure can be built that will withstand a catastrophic event", yet he is expecting us to believe that the building of a massive high level nuclear waste dump in SA will be safe. What planet is he on? Power was restored to most of the State within a few hours, but an event that would disrupt the nuclear dump will take millions of years to recover from and potentially ruin the economy of SA.

Greig Ebeling > Steve Charles

29 Sep 2016

Steve, I am not sure what you envisage happening in a worst case accident, but I believe you are exaggerating the outcome. I mean, they exploded nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they are both now thriving cities. Nuclear waste is difficult to manage, but it is isn't anywhere near as dangerous as you seem to think it is.

Steve Charles > Steve Charles

29 Sep 2016

Greig, I think you are missing the point. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tiny bombs in comparison the the huge accumulation of high level waste that will be stored in a facility that will eventually crumble anyway and release its contents into the environment. We are also talking about transporting this material from around the world to SA, a process that will continue for many years. As with yesterday's power event, you can't predict what could go wrong so it would be foolish to expose the population of SA to such risks.

Mike Wilson > Steve Charles

03 Oct 2016

Greig, the safety impacts of nuclear waste storage are so far more serious than the safety of the bombs of WWII vintage; for instance, imagine the power of the bomb over Nagasaki being magnified by a power of 10,000 and with an impact that will last over 100,000 years. Hell, even your dentist leaves the room when he xrays your teeth! To get a full(er) scope of the power of this development, view the profound documentary of what Sweden&Norway are doing to manage their waste at Onkalo. You can view it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wke01P0rz2Q

Greig Ebeling > Steve Charles

09 Oct 2016

Steve and Mike, again you have expressed a view that the HLW is extremely dangerous without actually quantifying the risk. From my perspective, you are irrationally afraid, and responding emotively. What do you imagine might go wrong in a worst case scenario, and what would be the negative outcome you envisage? How could such a mishap be worse than exploding a nuclear weapon over a city?

Mike, everyone knows that over exposure to radiation is to be avoided. But we live with that risk every day, we accept such risks (eg dental xrays) because we get benefits. That is the situation with HLW management in SA, we face risk but there are big economic benefits. How do arrive at the conclusion in this case that the risks are greater than the benefit?

Chris NotForPublication

28 Sep 2016

From what I understand the plan is to store nuclear waste above ground until they can afford to build the underground facilities.
Does anyone believe they will actually get around to building the underground facilities in their lifetime? There will always be more important things to do like topping up politicians retirement funds.

Now consider this if you support the concept of above ground nuclear storage. What would it take to turn the storage plant into a massive dirty bomb?

Not much I am afraid an ICBM will do it. North Korea has those. Never mind the super powers.

Greig Ebeling > Chris NotForPublication

29 Sep 2016

An ICBM targeting a tiny facility in the SA outback. Oh sure, now that's a military strategy! And no, North Korea does NOT have the technology to achieve that, even if they wanted to. How about some sensible comments?

Mike Wilson > Chris NotForPublication

03 Oct 2016

Grieg, it was an example of what could go wrong. More likely what will happen is that the internal pressure of the canisters will rise over acceptable limits turning them into pressure cookers that vent radioactive steam that no one will want to enter the area to fix. How could that happen? Put them in a desert just when global temperatures are climbing. That's one way.

Greig Ebeling > Chris NotForPublication

09 Oct 2016

Mike, the accident you envisage is no more likely than North Korea deliberately targeting a waste management facility in SA, and actually hitting it. Sensible comments please.

Joel Tuckwell

27 Sep 2016

Does anyone know if they are going to be looking into liquid fueled reactors? Specifically LFTRs? I would really like to be one of the first countries to be using one for the general public. They don't take up much space, their byproducts can't be used in weaponry, and they have several safety procedures if they happen to lose power. Also further information for people to refuse to even consider nuclear; more people have died from the radioactivity produce from mining and refining coal then have died from any of the four major nuclear incidents in the last 70 years. I also don't think this should be the final step, if we invest in nuclear it should be so we can have several thousand jobs and so we can save money to invest in green energy technology. Nuclear should not be used for more than 25 - 50 years as our main power source and after then should only be used when humanity decides to get it's butt off the ground and into space.

tom mccarthur > Joel Tuckwell

27 Sep 2016

Joel, please explain to me why we need to spent huge money to invest in nuclear energy so we can afford to invest in green energy. Nuclear energy will need to be hugely subsidised to get off the ground. It would never pay for itself in 25 to 50 years. Green technology is developing now. Why delay this by going nuclear first?

Steve Charles > Joel Tuckwell

29 Sep 2016

Yes, nuclear power is not cheap. Caulder Hall was the very first nuclear power station and was built in Britain and the population there are still paying for the very first watt of electricity generated as that fuel will need to be stored for thousands of years. They created it, and it is their problem. We don't want it here.

mark anderson > Joel Tuckwell

11 Oct 2016

Tom and Steve please read what Joel posted and educate yourself on what he is talking about. MSR's are cheaper than the standard Gen2 reactors, produce very low level waste because they consume the majority of the fissionable material and are 'walk away' safe. What you are talking about are the BWR reactors not LFTR or MSR reactors. Education is the enemy of ignorance.

Oh and if you want to talk about green energy LFTRs/MSR's are up there with the best. Educate yourself.

Joshua Warner

24 Sep 2016

As much as some people trump up these reasons why nuclear is fine and safe however, the earth and us cannot afford another Chernobyl or Fukashima. I am aware of new regulatory safety & maintenance but I wont live anywhere near a nuclear power station especially since we know what can happen if mistakes are made, we need the government and corporations to release the suppressed free energy technologies to produce power on a large scale.

Greig Ebeling > Joshua Warner

29 Sep 2016

Dear free energy conspiracy theorist,

Even including Cherbobyl and Fukushima, nuclear is still safer than solar PV in terms of mortality /kWh produced. So can the Earth cannot afford more solar PV?

Steve Charles > Joshua Warner

29 Sep 2016

Greig, that is a facile argument. And, how is that ratio calculated?

Mike Wilson > Joshua Warner

03 Oct 2016

Grieg, if it's so safe and effective why is the number of reactors in use dropping? Dropping from 435 eight years ago to 408 in use this year, with no new ones being commissioned? It's a dying technology.

Greig Ebeling > Joshua Warner

09 Oct 2016

Steve, the argument is based on number of deaths (sourced from the WHO) relative to the kWh produced by the respective technology. Not a difficult calculation. I can assure you the numbers are correct. There is a good discussion here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Mike, your are wrong - nuclear is not dying, it is growing. China is building 60 reactors, many more planned around the world. France has solid plans to replace their entire fleet with IFRs starting around 2030. Facts here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

mark anderson > Joshua Warner

11 Oct 2016

Nice Greig. Want to throw in the fact that interest in other much safer forms of fission reactors is exploding too (Pardon the pun).

Only problem Greig is people hear nuclear and rather than educate themselves they follow the crowd even though the evidence is shows against them.

Popular opinion is not always the right opinion otherwise the world would still be flat ^_^

Greig Ebeling > Joshua Warner

13 Oct 2016

Mark, are you aware that a poll of SA residents that less than 1 in 3 is opposed to nuclear power?

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Joshua Warner

14 Oct 2016

Hi Josh, thanks for joining the conversation and sharing your views. The Royal Commission investigated all areas of the nuclear fuel cycle and made a series of recommendations - this included power generation, however at this point in time, it concluded it was not viable under current market conditions however should be considered as a future low-carbon electricity source. The key recommendation we are considering as a community at this point in time is the opportunity to establish a nuclear waste storage and disposal facility. We do hope this helps clarify and thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

mark anderson > Joshua Warner

19 Oct 2016

HI Greg
Only 1 in 3? That's awesome. Hopefully the majority will push for nuclear power and we need to push for MSRs if we do go for nuclear power.

Laura Xue

24 Sep 2016

I bet this is America and Japan bullied our soft government to do so. Australia should really ally with China and take example from China not to yield to others, stand up and say no.

Greig Ebeling > Laura Xue

29 Sep 2016

Laura, China is building 60 nuclear power reactors, and at a rate 4 times faster than all their wind and solar combined.

Mike Wilson > Laura Xue

03 Oct 2016

Well, Grieg, actually they just want to build new nuclear reactors. But they can't. Know why? Chinese students realise there is no future in this and are not studying nuclear engineering, despite the incentives the Chinese government is building into recruiting those students.

Tony Vlavis > Laura Xue

05 Oct 2016

If you bothered reading she said she was the victim of a small radioactive leak.

Greig Ebeling > Laura Xue

09 Oct 2016

No Mike, China really is building the reactors. Facts here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx

Laura Xue

24 Sep 2016

Japan is slowly shutting down its nuclear plants, why, because they simply can not deal with the nuclear waste if something goes wrong and there is a leak. The waste can be airborne and uncontrollable . What can go wrong, natural disaster ? Terrorist attack ? Human error ? Government should not be short sighted and just choose the easy option to earn money in this lazy irresponsible way. Store all other country's waste ? Are u kidding me ?

Sarah Huang

23 Sep 2016

As an young South Australian who has travelled to 7 countries, I have not yet seen anywhere else as stunning as Australia, especially South Australia. I wish to raise my concerns, I was born in China, by the age of 2 I was heavily impacted by pollution as well as industrial nuclear waste, I suffered pneumonia due to the unsatisfactory air quality, until the age of 6, for every week I was admitted to the hospital for minor diseases such as a colds or infections due to a single incident of a minor nuclear waste. My parents devastated, had immigrated into Australia at 7, I remember the first time I saw South Australia's sky, I cried. I have never in my life seen a sky so blue,I also remember me running around at the Torrance river breathing in the fresh air, free from pollution. Strangely enough, my immune system built up, now, 17, I am healthy. Since then I have fell in love with the beautiful diverse ecosystem and landscape we preserve. Australia is known for its beautiful nature, when travelling as soon as I say I'm from Australia people usually gasp " Thats so cool!", i would always reply with the same question" why is that?". 80% the responses are related to our astonishing nature especially animals. Infact the government should already know that we receive a large chunk of income from tourism after agriculture. The only reason tourists around the world visit Australia is because of our stunning mother nature. Not only will this impact our nation on ecological terms, but especially economical terms. By taking the sum of money for this nuclear waste will not improve the economy on the long term. South Australia cannot inhibit or take the risk, the risk is too great. If, even with the slightest chance of 0.001%, just if there was a leakage, the damage will be irreversible, South Australia will turn into my nightmare, like my childhood. Do you want to see future Australians admitted into hospitals like I was, weekly. Do you want to see our precious ecosystems destroyed? The proposed site for nuclear waste is a seen sight for precious marine animal's reappearance, such as the adored, dolphins. Placing this under the ground of ocean will disturbed our marine life. Once again I want to highlight on how well precious our ocean system is. Australia is not short on money, we are the 1st most wasteful nation per capita in the whole world, we have access to health care, pensions, fair holidays, public transport, government support and so many more amazing benefits exclusive to Australia. Honestly, I doubt that sum of money not make any significant impact to benefit us individually. There are many better ways to establish and improve the economy, a few include the jobless must contribute to volunteer work to access pensions, encouraging more women to work or establishing tourism. Whatever the solution is, making our sanctuary, South Australia a nuclear dumpsite shouldn't be one of them. Think about it, do you want your children to have my childhood?

Greig Ebeling > Sarah Huang

29 Sep 2016

Sarah, nuclear power and waste does not cause the air pollution problems you were subjected to as a child. In fact, nuclear provides the ability to replace dirty coal plants which were the most likely cause of your ailments. This is exactly what China is doing now by building 60 new reactors.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Sarah Huang

14 Oct 2016

Hello Sarah, we appreciate you taking the time to write and share your story. This is something which all South Australians need to consider as a community and come to an informed decision on. One point to clarify from your post, is around a site - it's important to note that no site has been identified as part of the Royal Commission process; this would only come down the track if the Government chose to investigate any next steps (based on social consent to do so). Further, any proposed site would be on Australian land as a geological disposal facility (GDF) rather than in the ocean. We hope this information assists.

tony shirren

23 Sep 2016

I have no concerns with storing nuclear waste, I believe eventually that same waste which is only partially depleted could be recycled especially if we develop thorium based molten salt reators. Nuclear fission produces a million times more energy than chemical reactions using coal, oil or gas, it's time to develop nuclear and SA into the 21st century. Wind and solar is a giant step back to the stone age and it's time to stop with the ideological BS and face reality, the future is molten salt breeder reactors or similar and SA having major deposits of uranium it's time to use it and stop listening to uneducated ideological scare mongering and move SA into the future.

tom mccarthur > tony shirren

23 Sep 2016

Mr educated Tony. As most of the world will be involved with uranium don't you think that moving into the future means being "a clean green state". Clean seas clean food, wine and the like. Or is it your educated view that you would rather being part of the state known as the nuclear dump state?

Christopher Huckel > tony shirren

24 Sep 2016

Tony this Panacea you speak of sounds awe inspiring but what will happen when the highly educated individuals such as your good self wake up to the fact that these toxic resources are finite and will run out leaving the world and its inhabitants with a toxic legacy lasting hundreds of thousands of years, yes Tony it's time the people make a stand and stop listening to the BS Propoganda put out by the Nuclear Power Industry and the highly paid Lobbyists acting on behalf of these corrupt corporations and Demand a clean green future for all humanity.

Joel Tuckwell > tony shirren

27 Sep 2016

@Tony I don't think that wind and solar are a step back into the stone age. The answer here is not to be forced into two different arguing sides, that's what everyone else wants.

@Chris and @Tom Green energy is going to be the best step humanity can take, however to take that step we do need nuclear energy to get the ball rolling. We need huge reserves of power to be able to step up our research into green energy. How about you stop following the fear-mongering propaganda of green groups and actually research some of this stuff yourself.

mark anderson > tony shirren

11 Oct 2016

Keep your head up Tony. Soon they will understand about MSRs.
Agree with you too Joel but don't forget MSRs are green energy.

Greig Ebeling > tony shirren

15 Oct 2016

Christopher Huckel, there are enough known terrestrial reserves of uranium and thorium to last the world at least 5000 years, with FBRs "burning" the transuranic waste, leaving only a small amount of short lived waste isotopes. With advances in extraction technology, e.g. from seawater and deeper terrestrial and seabed deposits, there may be 100,000 years or more of nuclear fuels on Earth. In the given timeframe, it is very likely a new a better energy source will be discovered, e.g. fusion energy. The argument that we need to go to renewables because nuclear fuels are finite is a false argument.

Further it is irrelevant to this discussion, because it is about how to deal with existing waste, which will not suddenly go away in the very unlikely case that the world stops using nuclear power.

Franklin Alexander

22 Sep 2016

Where do I sign to stop this?
The government seem as if they are getting short sighted and greedy (under the table money cough cough)
Pull your heads out and look at fixing the problems we have in austraila not creating more

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Franklin Alexander

14 Oct 2016

Hi Franklin, you can certainly let the Government know your views by filling out the feedback form which you will find a link to on the homepage here on our website. Thanks for sharing your views.

Rosanna Cappelluti

22 Sep 2016

We talk about global warming etc - what happens when our coastline starts to diminish (we are talking about waste being stored for 1000's of years here, it is happening ) !? What happens when living along and near the coast as it is, is no longer viable .... where do we go from there ? Our coastline gets pushed back toward the centre of Australia and then we might then be sitting right next to a high level waste facility! (not to mention the people who are already so close to proposed sites!!!!!

they say that there would be no leakage, no problems with how they are stored - but how do they know? Its only been since what?, the 60's that this stuff has been needing to be stored, that's only 50+ years - its not hundreds of years, thousands of years.... how do they REALLY know and they will never know because THIS government wont be around to know - its leaving an uncertain, unwanted legacy to future children who will not have made this decision.

There are articles out there that say that the containers that are meant to prevent leakage and keep people safe ARE leaking and not keeping people safe and no one is following proper procedures to ensure safety... what makes SA Government think they are going to get this right!!! when other countries who actually deal with nuclear waste cant even get it right ..

Greig Ebeling > Rosanna Cappelluti

29 Sep 2016

Rosanna, Finland and Sweden are already building waste management facilities, and they have very smart geologists and engineers who ARE able to envisage solutions that last 1000s of years. We have smart people too, and we can do it just as well.

Mike Wilson > Rosanna Cappelluti

03 Oct 2016

That's right Greig. And they started doing it nearly 40 years ago, and they won't be finished building that facility (which is located 5 kms underground - yes, 5 kms!, not just in hi-tech barrels on the ground!). The completion of their single storage facility won't even be completed for another 30-40 years. If we have smart people, where the hell are they? Interested in how the Onkalo project is going? watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wke01P0rz2Q

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Rosanna Cappelluti

14 Oct 2016

Hi Rosanna, these are valid points which we need to discuss and understand as a community and we thank you for raising them. The Royal Commission found that after 60 years of research and development, there is a global consensus that a geological disposal facility is the most effective way to store and dispose of used fuel and intermediate level waste. Furthermore, the Commission found there has been extensive research, development and testing around the storage canisters to ensure there is no threat to humans, animals or the environment when permanently stored underground. I would encourage you to have a read of our fact sheet about GDFs if you're interested - it has some useful information which may address a few concerns. You can access it here (copy and paste): http://bit.ly/2edfSL1

Tony Glasson

21 Sep 2016

How do we achieve an incident free safety record ?
By that I mean NIL incidents resulting in leaks, spills.
I am not convinced. Limited quantities of low grade waste would be the most preferable option.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Tony Glasson

14 Oct 2016

Hi Tony, the Commission made the recommendation that any further nuclear activity in South Australia would need to have a structure regulatory framework in place, overseen by an independent regulator at all stages of the development and operation of a facility. You can find out more about regulation here (copy and paste): http://bit.ly/2eahs5y

Chelsea Halsall

20 Sep 2016

As a young Australian this most definitely makes me concerns the future of South Australia, and the rest Australia. I urge you not to be so money hungry, and consider the future generations that could be at risk.

Martin Vizjak

20 Sep 2016

I have two concerns.
Firstly I would really like to know how the risks were assessed and outcomes reached. In particular if you look at the timeframe of the project, i.e. 100,000 years+, I think any educated person would have assigned the probability of 0% for having a stable political environment. The rational being there has never been a stable political environment at a global scale let alone a domestic one of more than a few hundred years in our brief history of 4,000 odd years. So given we are certain to have political instability and wars at a global scale how can the risk of this project be acceptable and manageable?
Secondly, both Australia and South Australia are very lucky to have an unspoilt environment than produces a wide abundance of produce that is consumed locally and exported around the world. I seriously do not believe the risks to our clean status being tainted were taken into account. Once we have the waste here we cannot get rid of it nor the label of being a non-nuclear waste free zone. In the future this could/will have very serious economic implications on our producers which will far outweigh the small perceived economic benefit that this project is predicted to achieve.

Leon Ashton > Martin Vizjak

21 Sep 2016

My sentiments exactly

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Martin Vizjak

14 Oct 2016

Hi Martin, thank you for outlining your concerns. The Royal Commission heard from 132 expert witnesses, including 41 international experts, over 37 sitting days to analyse the benefits and risks of increasing South Australia's nuclear activity. This ensured a broad cross-section of expert evidence to provide a factual base for South Australians to consider and discuss.

In regards to your point about our state's clean green image, you raise a good point and something which other South Australians have discussed. The report found there was no compelling evidence that nuclear activity in SA would adversely affect other sectors such as tourism and agriculture, aquaculture or viticulture provided those facilities were operated safely and securely. This conclusion was reached by the Royal Commission based on the experiences of countries such as France and the USA who have significant involvement in all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle yet have world-leading industries as mentioned above. It’s also worth noting SA is already involved in uranium and other mining, and heavy industry without unduly damaging our clean, green image.

Tony Vlavis

19 Sep 2016

Can the government guarantee with 100% certainty that no radiation will ever leak?
Can the government guarantee with 100% certainty that there could never be an accident either at the disposal site or in transport of the waste?
Can the government guarantee with 100% certainty that our civilization will be around in 100,000 years time or more?
Can the government guarantee with 100% certainty that exporters of waste will pay $ for indefinate storage ?
Can anyone guarantee that the nuclear industry won't develop new reactors that will use up 100% of fuel and produce no waste?

If the answer to all these questions is yes then I will support radioactive nuclear waste being stored in my state.

As it stands this doesn't look like a great business plan. Looks like a huge gamble to me.

We are putting all our money, our lives and our children's lives on the table. Are you ready?

Greig Ebeling > Tony Vlavis

29 Sep 2016

Can you guarantee with 100% certainty that the next time you drive your car you will not be killed?

Obviously the answer is no, since we know cars kill over 1 million people each year around the world. So why do you not wish for automobiles to be banned, not only in SA but globally? Having cars seems like a huge gamble to me.

We are putting all our money, our lives and our children's lives on the table. Are you ready?

adrian hill > Tony Vlavis

06 Oct 2016

Hi Greig,
The difference to your car analogy is that radiation and its effects can last for hundreds, even thousands of years. One accident/problem/leakage can affect many generations. This is not true for car crashes.
From Carolyn Wild (not Adrian)

Greig Ebeling > Tony Vlavis

09 Oct 2016

adrian, death is death. You seem to be irrationally afraid of radiation, and unaware that you are already living in a sea of radiation which does not harm you because your body is evolved to tolerate it. On the other hand, your body has not evolved to withstand the trauma of a major car accident.

Christopher Huckel

17 Sep 2016

Safety will be achieved when we successfully stop the Government from their Filthy Plan to turn South Australia into the Worlds Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump..........

Lachlan Childs

14 Sep 2016

We are not a rich country, we don't have money to just throw in the air. A Nuclear waste dump would not only harm the environment, and radiate the land for future generations, but it would put the country into bankruptcy. The nuclear waste dump may in fact cost millions of dollars just to set up and manufacture. I understand that the government will then say "Oh! but if we go forward with the Nuclear Waste Dump, a total of $279 billion dollars with be made," Yea but at the risk of thousands being affected by radiation and if the shipping makes a mistake which could possibly happen, Australia would become another wasteland.

Noel Wauchope > Lachlan Childs

16 Sep 2016

There is that risk - remember Macbeth:
" I am in blood Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
Yes - the nuclear lobby wants exactly that - to get South Australia so committed to the project that SA will have to go on with, no matter how ruinous the cost.
There is also the potential for South Australia to receive canisters of high level waste, but then the project could go pear shaped, - the state left with "Stranded Wastes" (worse than Stranded Assets), - meanwhile the overseas companies could go quietly bankrupt, and avoid further payment.
Remember - the nuclear lobby's focus is on persuading South Asian countries to go nuclear. (It's irrelevant to them, if South Australia goes broke)

Greig Ebeling > Lachlan Childs

29 Sep 2016

Lachlan: "Australia would become another wasteland." ??? Really?

I think you will find there are some pretty smart people running this program who can demonstrate that it will make money for SA. I mean that's why they want to do it, not out of some mean-spirited desire to turn Australia into a wasteland.

Tony Vlavis > Lachlan Childs

05 Oct 2016

I think you will find that there are some pretty rich people running this program who can demonstrate that it will make them a lot of money. I think that's why they want to do it not some great desire to save our state from its financial woes.

Greig Ebeling > Lachlan Childs

09 Oct 2016

Tony, I think you will find that you are wrong about your conspiracy theory. This program is not about a few people making a lot of money, it is a state government based program.

Tony Vlavis > Lachlan Childs

10 Oct 2016

Greig, we don't live in a communist system, that's not the way things work here. Constructing the world's largest nuclear dump will be subcontracted out. Whoever is involved in building it will get paid. Whoever supplies the concrete etc. will make a fortune. They will get paid regardless if it is used or abandoned. They will have no responsibility if there is a leak or if a truck or ship has an accident. That would be us paying for the cleanup. If you think that is a conspiracy theory then you seem naive to the workings of capitalism and modern politics. The only way you I or any SA citizen will benefit from this is if we buy shares in these companies and move to NZ.

Marisol Da Silva

12 Sep 2016

People predicted the Fukushima accident could happen years before it did happen. Chernobyl had it's disaster because of human error. Because, as humans we do get it wrong. Years after both of these major catastrophes it is still costing money to maintain, clean up, not to mention the health issues of the people and children left behind to live with nuclear devastation. To this date there has been no real solution on how to store nuclear waste. It has been proven that it costs way to to much to plan, build, maintain now and far into the future as this stuff is going to stick around for what is essentially a forever (far beyond several human lifespans and our imaginations into the future). With all the information out there on radiation sickness and the unpredictability of natural disasters occurring, how can anyone hold a straight face and claim nuclear waste, power, mining, bombs are safe? Because ultimately all these things are linked. If you feel you have forgotten then ask the children of Chernobyl and the former USSR, Fukushima, the Marshall Islands, the survivors of the atomic bomb, British Maralinga SA tests, the tribals in Jagugoda Jharkhand India, and the list goes on. We don't learn. Why don't we learn from their stories? Why do you think South Australia suddenly will solve what no one has solved? Do you think future children are ever going to thank you for even entertaining this idea? It is a shame that a few greedy people can ruin the earth for the rest of us. We can't let this happen. We wont let this happen here.

Steve Charles > Marisol Da Silva

13 Sep 2016

Well said.

Greig Ebeling > Marisol Da Silva

13 Sep 2016

Marisol, nuclear power for electricity is a reality, it is not going away. In fact, it is going to be the mainstay for future reliable low emissions electricity production. China is building 100 reactors, many more are being built in Europe and Asia. So we have 50 years of waste to manage, and more coming. Fact. So why don't we get involved in solving the waste management problem to protect future generations. True environmentalism does not bury its head in the sand, it gets on with solving the problem.

Peter Lazic > Marisol Da Silva

13 Sep 2016

...and you expect this incompetent government to be the driving force for this?

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Marisol Da Silva

16 Sep 2016

Hi Marisol, we thank you for taking the time to share your concerns, which are certainly all key considerations as related to nuclear activity.

We take your point about the solution to nuclear waste - the Royal Commission found that a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) is viewed by expert scientists and governments around the world as the best available solution for managing used nuclear fuel over the long term. There are GDF programs in development, or facilities scheduled to begin operation in the next few years, in Finland, Sweden and Switzerland, to which the Commission drew on research and key learnings from during the process.

It is important to differentiate with regards to a nuclear accident at a reactor, and that at a waste storage facility as we're discussing here. The Royal Commission report states on page 164 that "A major nuclear accident resulting in the widespread dispersal of radioactive material would have profound regional impacts. However, such catastrophic consequences are conceivable only in the event of a serious accident at a nuclear power plant. With respect to managing radioactive waste in a highly engineered and specifically designed storage and disposal facility, the risks and potential consequences of an accident are different and lower."

Noel Wauchope > Marisol Da Silva

16 Sep 2016

"Such catastrophic consequences are conceivable only in the event of a serious accident at a nuclear plant"
Interesting that the writer thinks that they are conceivable, if only at a nuclear plant - but apparently still thinks that the nuclear industry is worth the risk, seeing that the whole push for new nuclear is in South Asia, where they still have the choice to be nuclear-free.
This writer, and the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission both seem unaware of the growing danger of a terrorist attack on either a nuclear waste facility, or, more likely, on the transport to the facility , whether it be by air, sea or land. That ever more likely possibility would indeed result in the widespread dispersal of radioactive material .

tony shirren > Marisol Da Silva

23 Sep 2016

Your more likely to die falling on your tooth brush than by terrorists attack, nuclear waste is not a nuclear bomb.

Laura Xue > Marisol Da Silva

24 Sep 2016

I bet no one expected 911 or the Japan nuclear plant disaster, yet it happened. Nuclear waste not your house hold garbage. Imagine breathing in small invisible particles that kill u in unknown ways, they are every where in the air, nothing can stop it.

Read the NFCRC report yet?

12 Sep 2016

To Mr Dufferfield's post below:

Ben I congratulate you for your efforts and for putting forward quite a long post, well done on the 07 Aug 16.
I see you are an educated man and do far better than some such as Christopher Huckel who feels he has to jump on anyone’s post and made no effort to know nuclear and become informed on the subject of key relevant issues such as:

- Waste nuclear fuel and
- Nuclear energy in general.

Ben with due respect in your post: you say things like: “I have expert qualification”

>Then what is your ‘expert’ qualification?

*Another of your claims: “and nearly thirty years’ experience”:

> thirty years working where? > doing what?

* Another claim you’re making: “real world experience” > then what is ‘unreal’ world experience?

> This sounds is a bit like sales talk.

****

* Your claim “in maintaining complex machines” > maintaining what machines?

Are you a Fitter? You still have not named yet your qualification?

> Please tell us what machines you gained experience on? And doing what exactly?

> Specifically what machines please?

Washery screens?

What vibrating frequency?

What amplitude?

And if so what type of Static dampening or Dynamic dampening?
.
Reciprocating engines?
.
Conveyors?
.
2200mm wide conveyors delivering coal at 10kilotonnes/hour?
.
Do you know what a kilotonne is?

Do you know how belt-tension is maintained? And which load cases such as Stalled torque full?

Were the machines you claim diverter chutes?

Perhaps Drive-stations?

How to maintain belt-tension- would you suggest with a Take up?

What forces at the base of the Take up frames?
.
And what is the SI unit for Force?
.
For thirty years’ experience (as you claim) you would certainly have an idea about lifing of machines. Such a know all.

But you know nothing but how to spin sales **** to the ignorant; yet still will not mention any knowledge or experience on nuclear fuel with no mention in your dribble about knowledge on nuclear anything, because pal I served on the Missouri and taught for five years at Naval Reactors in Washington before moving here as Commodore of the RAN
.
Do you know anything about lifing of machines?
And for lifing of machines would you refer to a Technical Management Manual such as AAP7001.053?
Mr Dufferfield more questions for you:
.
What management tools would use for lifing of machines and infrastructure?
CM (Condition Monitoring)?

or

UM (Usage Monitoring)?
.

What participation have you had in CIP (Component Improvement Programs) or equivalent user groups?

For example in both military and civilian applications anyone with thirty years’ experience would have been faced with, major disruptions to operations due to unexpected lifing reductions.
.
Ben do you know what a lifing reduction is?

Lifing reductions are often advised by the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) following re-analysis of fatigue limits, often triggered by separate in-service failures.

Have you carried out any critical path lifing extensions? Critical path lifing extensions require detailed risk analysis.

Ben you have made no mention to demonstrate you have any knowledge on nuclear. As professionals we must not comment outside our core areas of expertise.

So why comment?

Have you read the NFCRC report?

* then your claim: “thirty years’ experience on mechanical engineered systems” is total ****.

Then for your thirty years’ experience then Ben you must back it up and justify it!!!

No more dribble okay?
.
.
I have some other questions which you would at least know some of the answers to from you widely ambitious claims:

We can start with units and even I know the metric system better than some morons here from kookoo land Environmental fantasy island like where you come from but are so arrogant.

What is the SI (System International’e) unit for energy?
What is the SI (System International’e) unit for Power?
What is the SI (System International’e) unit for Force?
What is the difference between force and pressure?
Who is the SI unit for pressure named after?

Electrical, Structural, Mechanical commonly used prefixes for the magnitudes of metric units above for you my friend:
What is the metric prefix for 10000? 1000 000? (Or ten raised to the power fifteen) often used in nuclear energy?)

**Do you know anything about Nuclear energy?
**Anything relevant to the NFCRC proposal?

**Have you read the NFCRC report?

If you know anything about mechanical engineering, Trades Fitting, Building trades or Asset management you would at least know something about the Metric system.

- What is the approximate rule of thumb for the design-speed of water through a pipe to reduce pipe friction?
- And is pipe friction what function of velocity? No idea.
___________________________
SINGLE VARIABLE CALCULUS:
_
- Ben is fluid flow through a pipe a function of third power of velocity? No idea.
Ben is drag proportional to the square of speed or the cube of speed? No idea.
- Did you do single variable calculus at high school? or
- Did you do multi-variable calculus at University?

- MULTI VARIABLE CALCULUS:
-How do you differentiate a two variable function to get the minimum using the X and Y axis (if the Z axis is the vertical axis)? Ummmmmm?
.

For your asset management why is it that multi-variable calculus is mostly used?
__________________________________________
For your thirty years experience please name one software package? Strand7? ummmm? durr?

Do you back it up with hand calculations?

_______________
- Matrix algebra: What is the determinate used for when multiplying matrices? (say a 20 x 20 matrix)
____________________________________________
Ben you arrogantly cliam to have thirty years’ experience in your post - I can help you on compression ratios (at least something to go towards your widely unsubstantiated mandit claims):
-

Firstly the Compression ratio of a typical petrol reciprocating engine is about 9 to 1 (ballpark) as a start…
Secondly the Pressure ratio in Combined Cycle Gas Turbine engines used to generate electricity are no different to the Pressure ratios in following Gas turbine engines:

- The Pressure ratio please in the F404 (Classic Hornet Turbofan in both your RAAF Hornets and US Navy Hornets).
- Pressure ratio please in the F414? (Super Hornet Turbofan in both RAAF Hornets and US Navy hornets).
-

And,

- The Pressure ratio please in a typical CCGT Engine?
-

- Also what is the limiting constraint for the output of a Gas turbine engine?
-

Is the output constraint temperature and the materials used? If not why not?

____________________________________
Also talking about constraints: Ben for your asset management do you use dynamic programming models for lifing of Civil assets?

Ben specifically what mechanical engineering systems are you referring to when you say thirty years experience?

STOP MAKING THINGS UP/

What is the typical Reynold’s of a PVC pipe?

-

Ben – MECHANICAL ENGINEERING MAINTENANCE:

Any Fitter or Boilermaker knows this….. What is use to test the temperature of steel before shrink fitting a bearing into a housing?
-

Ben – mechanical engineering maintenance - welding: What type of electrode is used for extra penetration for the root run in a multi-layered fillet?

And for extra penetration when MIG welding, is pure CO2 or a blend of CO2 and other gases used?
What type of gas is used when welding Aluminium?
-

Corrosion: What is the most active metal in the anodic galvanic series? What is filiform corrosion? Which metals are most succeptable to stress corrosion cracking?
Would a 7075 rivet in the heat treated ‘T80’ condition corrode more than its surrounding steel or less? Hint: 7075 rivet is from the Zinc Aluminum alloy family used on aircraft.

-
Mr Dufferfield with due respect to another claim by you:

You say you have “thirty years’ experience in highly critical plant” >What plant??

Mr Dufferfield with due respect another claim made by you:

You say you have “thirty years’ experience in building infrastructure assets.
-
>Okay: In reinforced concrete what is a typical water-cement ratio adopted to address the corrosion of reinforcement? 0.5? 0.6?
-

> And what correlation does f’c have with water cement ratio for reinforced concrete buildings? I can help you: f’c refers to the 28 day compressive strength of concrete my friend and 32 MPa correlates with a w/c ratio of close to 0.6

-More:
What is the typical B.O.D. Basic Oxygen Demand) used in the primary treatment stage of sewerage treatment works? Ummmmmm NO IDEA.

-
Ben you claim here: “Currently I am responsible for the South Australian Govt’s 2nd most critical asset???????????

WELL WHAT IS THAT ASSET IF IT IS THE SECOND BIGGEST SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS' MOST CRITICAL ASSET?

Do you want medal or a chest to pin it to on for this one?

Please name the asset.
Please name the asset and do not be so arrogant to others here.

I do admire your intelligence and creativity.

-
Ben please name at least one of the Australian Standards you would refer to for managing infrastructure assets?
One?
.

AS3000?

.
AS3600?

.
AS4100?

.

-

Also Ben you quote here; “The following observations and opinion however, reflect upon my entire career experience, from both the public and private sector.”

=
But you still have not told us your qualifications and made no specific references?!

You must at least quote some Australian Standards. It is easy to make a mandit claim to these things my friend but you have to justify them either by;

1) Ancedotal evidence
2) Empirical evidence
3) Theoretical evidence

Ben below you claim the following:
“During my career > What career? >Doing what? >What qualifications?

And you say the following: “I have experienced and dealt with many incidents relating to the plant/assets in my care that were both foreseen and un-foreseen. However they were all attributable to a common collective of causes and they always resulted in a loss of continuous service delivery”.

What evidence? What risk assessments? Have you ever done a risk assessment?

-
To what Australian Standards?
Please name one?

Ben you say here: “I will list the contributing factors in order of influence from greatest to least contribution”:

1. Economics – A reluctance or inability to spend money either as capital investment in initial build or on an ongoing basis in the form of maintenance costs.
So there is no such thing as a the Snowy mountains hydroelectric scheme?
Based on what economic modelling?

2. Politics – In the age of economic rationalism, political effects consistently divorce relevant qualified commentary from governance and all decisions are measured on either short term economic effect (see 1) and/or short term public relations effects. Decisions are taken only with respect to the taxation system, budgets, free market rationalism, return on investment or the tenure (enduring responsibility) of the person taking the decision. IE The politicians, lawyers, economists and finance personnel have been handed the purse strings and predicate every decision on economic factors, (which directly links with their primary role/function as typically this is all they are qualified and often aware to do). They are quiet simply incapable of making a balanced (and therefore good) decision and are often under immense political (career) pressure. Ironically people would considerate it most inappropriate for labourers, tradesmen, scientists, engineers, clinicians, teachers, policemen etc etc to be making decisions in isolation of other disciplines and yet most don’t bat an eye lid when yet another accountant or lawyer is handed ultimate power in decision making about multi-disciplinary fields of endeavour. (It’s a ridiculous situation brought about by the Global banking cartel and the indoctrination of the GDP being the penultimate measure of success of a society, however I am digressing….).

Ben there is Bi-partisan support for the NFCRC proposal – you’re wrong again.

3. Legal or Liable deference – These days it’s often called ‘risk management’. Risk management.
______________

Oh Ben you say this:
‘these days it’s often called risk management”

as if to say you are a know-all again – so arrogant.

Yet again you make no reference to any relevant Australian Standards on the subject or methodology.

-

MR Dufferfield WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO PUT FORWARD ANY DEMONSTRATED KNOWLEDGE ON ANYTHING NUCLEAR?
1) WHAT DOES HLW CONSIST OF?

2) And your knowledge and experience in anything nuclear? Because I have a plenty to speak of FROM THE US NAVY before transferring here to the RAN.

-
a) And like MOST ENVIRONMENTAL NUTCASES; you still have not made the connection with the very things they object to are the same things they use in daily life

b) I also noticed YOU HAVE NO ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS TO PUT FORWARD.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CALL OUT THE HONOURABLE PREMIER JAY WEATHERAL of this great state of ours.

Christopher Huckel > Read the NFCRC report yet?

12 Sep 2016

Easy to hide shows a persons true character when they lack the backbone to put their name out there yes the courage you must have to denigrate those that at least had the courage to put their name on their comment unlike the stuff I'm scraping off my shoe.

Peter Lazic > Read the NFCRC report yet?

13 Sep 2016

Steven McColl by some other name. I guess his new alias makes him more comfortable referring to Ben Duffield as Ben Dufferfield. Grow up Steven.

Greig Ebeling > Read the NFCRC report yet?

13 Sep 2016

Well somebody had to take the time to point out that Ben doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Obviously the fan club (Chris and Peter) aren't interested in anything but ad hom responses.

Peter Lazic > Read the NFCRC report yet?

13 Sep 2016

Isn't it ironic that Jay W is today defending the building of diesel submarines in preference to nuclear powered submarines, given how far down the road he has pushed his cause for 'SA the Nuclear State'.
You wonder why so many of us are cynical?