Mr Milk said..




There was nothing covert about it. Iraq bought a nuclear reactor from France in 1976. The Israelis bombed and destroyed it in 1981.

The yellowcake was known about before 1991
www.snopes.com/fact-check/have-your-yellowcake/
American troops who suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq unwittingly may have stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium, officials said. They said the U.S. troops may have broken U.N. seals meant to keep control of the radioactive material. The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, which has inspected the Tuwaitha nuclear complex at least two dozen times and maintains a thick dossier on the site, had no immediate comment. But an expert familiar with U.N. nuclear inspections told The Associated Press that it was implausible to believe that U.S. forces had uncovered anything new at the site. Instead, the official said, the Marines apparently broke U.N. seals designed to ensure the materials aren't diverted for weapons use or end up in the wrong hands. "What happened apparently was that they broke IAEA seals, which is very unfortunate because those seals are integral to ensuring that nuclear material doesn't get diverted," the expert said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Several tons of low-grade uranium has been stored at Tuwaitha, Iraq's principal nuclear research center and a site that has been under IAEA safeguards for years, the official said. The Iraqis were allowed to keep the material because it was unfit for weapons use without costly and time-consuming enrichment. The uranium was inspected by the U.N. nuclear agency twice a year and was kept under IAEA seal at least until the Marines seized control of the site.

Why would Australia want to enrich uranium at all? It would be much cheaper to buy it from a company and country that has expertise. And building bombs and delivery systems is off in la la land

cisco said..We as humans DO learn from our mistakes. Nuclear technology has come a long way since those events. Look it up.

holy guacamole said..



Yeah sure, I'll "look it up" because I'm completely ignorant!!

We do as humans learn from our mistakes. Burning bucket loads of fossil fuels is a mistake. MArketing nuclear power as a viable economic option when electricity demand per capita in Australia is largely falling, is a mistake......

Nuclear power is one of the most expensive forms of energy generation around, especially when you have to build all the infrastructure supporting it from scratch.

It's definitely not sustainable for hundreds and thousands of years into the future.

It most certainly is not carbon emissions free. In fact the mining and enrichment produces large amounts of greenhouse gases at present.

Entire elections have been fought and won over price so I doubt Australians will swallow the extra power prices from nuclear energy, or accept the clean up bill or the storage management bills. Look it up.

www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nuclear-energy-is-still-a-stupid-idea-for-australia-20170316-guzb68.html

log man said..
Surely that finishes it!!!

FormulaNova said..
Of course, the design needs to cater for relatively fast changes in load, and failing that, pump something to somewhere else or turn the extra power into petrol(!!! yeah!!!).

holy guacamole said..
Sure read like that's what you were implying.

Kamikuza said..




1 Absolute and utter nonsense.

2 So you build it. Iraq managed to do it, right under the noses of multiple inspection teams.

3 All power stations are expensive

holy guacamole said..
Australia doesn't desire. Sorry.

Maybe move (back) to Japan where they know all about nuclear reactor meltdowns....you could report on the progress of decontamination and cancer rates amongst the survivors and technicians.

Mr Milk said..
There was nothing covert about it. Iraq bought a nuclear reactor from France in 1976. The Israelis bombed and destroyed it in 1981.

The yellowcake was known about before 1991
www.snopes.com/fact-check/have-your-yellowcake/
American troops who suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq unwittingly may have stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium, officials said. They said the U.S. troops may have broken U.N. seals meant to keep control of the radioactive material. The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, which has inspected the Tuwaitha nuclear complex at least two dozen times and maintains a thick dossier on the site, had no immediate comment. But an expert familiar with U.N. nuclear inspections told The Associated Press that it was implausible to believe that U.S. forces had uncovered anything new at the site. Instead, the official said, the Marines apparently broke U.N. seals designed to ensure the materials aren't diverted for weapons use or end up in the wrong hands. "What happened apparently was that they broke IAEA seals, which is very unfortunate because those seals are integral to ensuring that nuclear material doesn't get diverted," the expert said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Several tons of low-grade uranium has been stored at Tuwaitha, Iraq's principal nuclear research center and a site that has been under IAEA safeguards for years, the official said. The Iraqis were allowed to keep the material because it was unfit for weapons use without costly and time-consuming enrichment. The uranium was inspected by the U.N. nuclear agency twice a year and was kept under IAEA seal at least until the Marines seized control of the site.

Why would Australia want to enrich uranium at all? It would be much cheaper to buy it from a company and country that has expertise. And building bombs and delivery systems is off in la la land

Macroscien said..
That is another Truth from remote snowy volcanic island.

Just English grammar is a bit misleading here.
When it says carbon-free - it means "free to go" to the atmosphere.
Since the production of a product ordered in Japan requires an emission of 12 tonnes of carbon monoxide straight into the atmosphere for each tone of hydrogen produced from our brow coal. That 12 tonne is very optimistic and not realistic figure as liquidation of hydrogen to such low temperature requires an enormous amount of energy.
Obviously I would suggest Japan to build already another bigger ship to take that this poisonous CO to Japan and release there instead of in Australia. Funny how Japan now plans to utilize cleansed energy at the cost of Australia. All pollution from brown coal will stay here but pure hydrogen arrives to Japan.I would propose to send this new ship on a scrap yard, melt and drow conductive cable that could now transfer clean high voltage electricity to Japan without the need for hydrogen.Nice and pure electrons only from solar panels at our outback Australian land.What Australia gain when we switch the whole country to electric vehicles - stopping pumping CO from our exhaust pipes - will be replaced 10 x with dirty hydrogen production

holy guacamole said..
Nuclear power is one of the most expensive forms of energy generation around, especially when you have to build all the infrastructure supporting it from scratch.

It's definitely not sustainable for hundreds and thousands of years into the future.

It most certainly is not carbon emissions free. In fact the mining and enrichment produces large amounts of greenhouse gases at present.

Entire elections have been fought and won over price so I doubt Australians will swallow the extra power prices from nuclear energy, or accept the clean up bill or the storage management bills. Look it up.

www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nuclear-energy-is-still-a-stupid-idea-for-australia-20170316-guzb68.html

log man said..








Surely that finishes it!!!

Kamikuza said..





Did I say "built a bomb"? LOL

No I said "build the refinement infrastructure" like Iraq did. Right under the noses of weapon inspectors.

www.armscontrol.org/act/2008-09/us-removes-uranium-iraqi-nuclear-site

I'm sure if you google it yourself you'll get more hits from different sources, if you don't like my top hit.

500 tons of yellow cake means the enrichment program was successful.

...what was that you were saying about credibility?

Mr Milk said..
None of the nuclear advocates in the room have mentioned the fact that uranium is a limited resource. There is enough economically recoverable uranium in the world for about 50 years at current usage

https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/621-622/4-uranium-reserves

If we would decide to replace all electricity generated by burning fossil fuel with electricity from nuclear power today, there would be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for between 3 and 4 years (O'Rourke, 2004; Storm van Leeuwen & Smith, 2004). Even if we were to double world usage of nuclear energy, the life span of uranium reserves would be just 25 years. Therefore any potential benefits to the climate are extremely temporary.

Mr Milk said..
None of the nuclear advocates in the room have mentioned the fact that uranium is a limited resource. There is enough economically recoverable uranium in the world for about 50 years at current usage

https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/621-622/4-uranium-reserves

If we would decide to replace all electricity generated by burning fossil fuel with electricity from nuclear power today, there would be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for between 3 and 4 years (O'Rourke, 2004; Storm van Leeuwen & Smith, 2004). Even if we were to double world usage of nuclear energy, the life span of uranium reserves would be just 25 years. Therefore any potential benefits to the climate are extremely temporary.

Mr Milk said..
None of the nuclear advocates in the room have mentioned the fact that uranium is a limited resource. There is enough economically recoverable uranium in the world for about 50 years at current usage

https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/621-622/4-uranium-reserves

If we would decide to replace all electricity generated by burning fossil fuel with electricity from nuclear power today, there would be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for between 3 and 4 years (O'Rourke, 2004; Storm van Leeuwen & Smith, 2004). Even if we were to double world usage of nuclear energy, the life span of uranium reserves would be just 25 years. Therefore any potential benefits to the climate are extremely temporary.

psychomub said..




...plus they ignore the fact that the spent fuel must be stored and kept cool for tens of thousands of years. When all the uranium is gone, what will power the pumps?

psychomub said..






No, I don't like your sources.

Here's one that is more credible:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

In short , there never was any yellowcake from Niger, so your "secret repatriation of 500 tons to Canada" should be filed in the "Utter BS" folder with the othe WMD lies.

holy guacamole said..







Highlights the short term thinking of nuclear industrialists. I doubt those figures are accurate however nuclear power is definitely not sustainable long term.

Macroscien said..
Kamikaze possibly don't take into account small conflicts that could arise ( as had been for thousand years already).In the case off small altercation with Noth Korea, they will strike beautiful Japan with conventional rocket to wide open all existing nuclear reactors.Long standing damage and amount of uranium particles released exceed one of biggest nuclear bomb.Japan wasn't able to protect itself from naughty ocean wave , so even less capable against NK threat.

Now Kamikuze could do computer simulation to see what percentage of land area will be covered with nuclear fallout in the case all power plant do release their content.

Typical nuclear reactor conform 100 tonnes of Uranium.
Now multiply that by amount of nuclear power plants in Japan - 42
Compare this to 60 tonnes released in Chernobyl disaster. I think that Kamikuze have already Plan B ( as the rest of Japan population) - migration to Australia safe heaven, when thing go really wrong with neighbour constantly poked into eye with stick.BTW New Zealand will even refuse entry to person so much irradiated as Kamikuze, US will not issue green card, so not so much places to hide for cocky, but naive

Kamikuza said..







The level of ignorance in that post is so staggering I just can't even.

Nice try though, better add another layer to your tin foil hat.

(190 tonnes in reactor 4. Don't believe everything you see in Netflix specials).

Kamikuza said..
Americas current fleet of nuclear power stations are 40 years old and are expected to run for another 50 to 70. www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-plant-aging-reactor-replacement-/

Kamikuza said..




Psst there's not that much to store and the earth does a pretty good job of stashing radioactive materials already. Oklo is the google term for you.