Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..Kamikuza said..Mr Milk said
Yellowcake is not enriched uranium. It is U3O8, the concentrate that comes from the processed ore.
Enrichment is the next step down the line. It requires that the yellowcake be converted to the low temperature gas UF6, which is then passed through gas centrifuges multiple times to achieve isotopic separation.
Incredible that you think otherwise, 'specially after reading the link that you posted.
You're right, it's an intermediate step in the process of refining uranium, so the fact that Iraq had yellowcake is evidence that either
a. Iraq somehow slipped 500 tons of yellowcake into the country without the rest of the world finding out and had plans to continue its enrichment
or
b. they had infrastructure in place that was enriching uranium ore.
Which they did: www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/iraqs_fm_history.html
They didn't have a bomb. And back to my point, if they can covertly build the infrastructure for enriching uranium right under the world's nose then it wouldn't be an impossible task for Australia to do it legally with advice and aid from other nuclear-powered nations.
Should Australia so desire 
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
Information....it's gold.
Select to expand quotecisco said..We as humans DO learn from our mistakes. Nuclear technology has come a long way since those events. Look it up.
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
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..cisco said..We as humans DO learn from our mistakes. Nuclear technology has come a long way since those events. Look it up.
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
Surely that finishes it!!!
Select to expand quotelog man said..
Surely that finishes it!!!
Yes. We have different opinions. End of story.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova 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!!!).
IIRC again but meltdown into a containment vessel is passive "cooling", but that's the end of the reactor. There's lots of options out there for nuclear power on the drawing boards...
IIRC yet again fast changes in load isn't an issue as the generators predict what's needed ie. football game on a six, everyone will be turning on lights and TVs so ramp up the output. Also a reason why nuclear power stations are not the only generators on the grid...
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Sure read like that's what you were implying. 
I wasn't implying anything, I was responding directly to a comment about enrichment.Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..IFocus said..
1 The only reason to go nuclear is to build a bomb other wise pointless, given the rise of China could be a good idea.
2 Australia has no means of enrichment to achieve that pick a number in years to achieve that.
3 Then pick another number to build the over all cost would be huge thats before you get to waste and whos back yard you build it in.......never ever going to happen but great ramp idea for those fck-witt politicians that have no idea.
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
Select to expand quoteholy 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.
Oh, you speak on behalf of Australia? Kewl.
I guarantee more people in the area and technicians will die from smoking-related lung cancer than radiation.
Perhaps you could dig those stats out?
Select to expand quoteMr 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
So you're telling me ... Iraq was refining uranium. But that's not the program I'm talking about as being "covert".
First-hand testimony from the head of the enrichment program: www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=mahdi_obeidi
Because Australia could? Would it be cheaper?
I'm not interested in bombs, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
I think I get what your issue is -- you believe Iraq had no WMDs so the second gulf war was uncalled for, and somehow I'm saying that because they had an enrichment program, it was actually justified.
Indeed, Iraq had no effective WMDs but Sadaam totally gamed himself by destroying a bunch of past the used-by date chemical weapons and delivery systems before the inspectors got a chance to inspect it and supervise the destruction, and then Sadaam kept posturing like he still had them to keep Iran from his throat.
Information *is* gold.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien 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
All that jibber-jabber in there ... I assume what you're scoffing it is basically the carbon-offset system.
You know of course that Heathrow Airport is on-track to be completely carbon-neutral by next year? Electric planes, I hear you ask? No, the magic of carbon-offsets.
www.edie.net/news/6/Heathrow--on-track--for-carbon-neutral-expansion/
Select to expand quoteholy 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
Apparently we don't learn from our mistakes. There are several posts that state the costs of building power stations. You don't have to build the infrastructure from scratch, you have to build the plant, and any electricity generation will have to do the same thing.
Neither is solar or wind
Neither is solar or wind
Oh we're doing opinion pieces now? Can I post some from scientists rather than your columnist?
"As you are doubtlessly aware, our nation is currently gripped in an energy crisis"
Wait, what? I thought you said demand was "largely falling"?
Looks like it's stable ATM but if you're going to get rid of the gas-powered vehicles, where do you think you'll get power for the electric fleet from?
www.energy.gov.au/government-priorities/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics
www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistics/annual-electricity-consumption-nem
LOL no credibility
Select to expand quotelog man said..holy guacamole said..cisco said..We as humans DO learn from our mistakes. Nuclear technology has come a long way since those events. Look it up.
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
Surely that finishes it!!!
Well the latest nuclear reactor designs (most current plants are 1950s technology) is passively cooled, relatively economical to build and can use actually use all the waste product from the past and current reactors that are just sitting there at the moment, in the open with no solution what to do with it. You think plastic is an issue, this is a ticking time bomb !!
apparently there is enough waste product in the US to power the country for over a thousand years or so. why not build reactors (designed by some of the greatest minds on the planet through bill gates foundation) cut the fossil fuel Usage, whilst still researching and developing sustainable renewable energy at the same time. Why does it have to be one or the other?
Renewables energy production Is just not a realistic option at the moment unless we have a radical shift in how we live with a completely different infrastructure (which would cost a lot more than your so called expensive nuclear reactors). And who is honestly willing to do that?
I don't like the idea of nuclear power reactors at all. But the numbers show it may be the only feasible solution.
If nuclear power was economically and politically viable in Australia, we'd have it by now.
Incessant poly-waffle about its virtues is meaningless in this context.
Australia could save heaps of carbon emissions with the new nuclear technologies by refining our ore & exporting it cheaper than sending it to overseas along with gas& coal to refine it
Totally ticks every box if we did it right .
Make massive money for the country & save massive green house gases worldwide there's no point in anything we do as a country if we export our metals overseas to be refined buy our gas & coal shipped overseas to do it when we can do it here improving our industry & making a real global difference how much is burned up just transporting our raw products to overseas refineries?
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..holy guacamole said..Kamikuza said...So you build it. Iraq managed to do it, right under the noses of multiple inspection teams.
So you think Iraq built a nuclear bomb?
LOL, no credibility.
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?
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.
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 usagehttps://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.
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
Select to expand quotepsychomub said..Kamikuza said..holy guacamole said..Kamikuza said...So you build it. Iraq managed to do it, right under the noses of multiple inspection teams.
So you think Iraq built a nuclear bomb?
LOL, no credibility.
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?
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.
So Sadaam never bought the yellowcake from Nigeria. So what?
Now you just have to wave your ideological magic wand and disappear the physical evidence. Read the "Aftermath" section in your own link. All the way to the end, mind you.
And you'll still need to explain away the head of the nuclear program away too.
On her way home, Greta the 16-year-old Swedish eco-activist and chronic truant stopped to address a Fridays for Future gathering in Turin, Italy, at which she went the full-Fidel Castro.
"Unfortunately, we probably already know the outcome. World leaders are still trying to run away from their responsibilities but we have to make sure they cannot do that. We will make sure that we put them against the wall and they will have to do their job to protect our futures,"
Against the wall........omg
She went full commie
Select to expand quoteMacroscien 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
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).
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..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
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).
It's not so far fetched an idea.
I read a book a few months ago "The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States"
Yes, it is a novel, but written by Dr Jeffrey Lewis, who is a USA strategic policy wonk. It essentially war games a scenario where a civilian accident spirals out of control over a few hours and days due to communications failures and NK launches against Japan, S Korea and the USA.
Chillingly possible
Select to expand quoteKamikuza 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-/
At which point they run out of gas.
The USA has a multi trillion $ backlog of deferred maintenance on its infrastructure. Why shouldn't they sweat the reactors too?
