# Nuclear Energy



## mrboajangles (Jun 16, 2007)

Just wondering, what are peoples opinions on nuclear energy powering Australia? After doing a fair bit of research on the matter I am FOR it. I dont understand why certain political parties are doing their best to make the industry look bad based on untrue infomation to scare the average Australian person.
Anyway it will be interesting to see peoples arguements!!


----------



## cris (Jun 16, 2007)

Im yet to see any arguement based on facts that are against it. IMO we need it ASAP vote for Johnny and we will get it vote for the guy and he wont even consider it(even though it would prove to be vital to combat CO2 emmisions). Australia stands to gain from alot from this industry in many ways.

I think the opposition to it is simply emotional and misguided BS.


----------



## jessop (Jun 16, 2007)

cris said:


> Im yet to see any arguement based on facts that are against it. IMO we need it ASAP vote for Johnny and we will get it vote for the guy and he wont even consider it(even though it would prove to be vital to combat CO2 emmisions). Australia stands to gain from alot from this industry in many ways.
> 
> I think the opposition to it is simply emotional and misguided BS.



That is sad to know i have to vote for 'johnny the puppet' to see it happen

I will never vote for that 'richard cranium' again! NEVER!


----------



## mica (Jun 16, 2007)

Who wouldn't like to see snakes glow in the dark?


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 16, 2007)

Yes its unfortunate that Rudd is against it! Because i really dont want to vote Howard!! Peoples biggest arguement is about chernobyl, this annoys me. It was a poor reactor design, poorly made, built in a struggling country that was not interested in what the western world knew or had to say. I dont think Australia fits into any of these categories.


----------



## Ramsayi (Jun 16, 2007)

yeah yeah
A question for all the nuclear energy lovers.Would you still have the same attitude if it was next door to where you live?

Also what about the issue of spent fuel rods.I guess as long as its shipped to another country all is well eh?


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 16, 2007)

mica said:


> Who wouldn't like to see snakes glow in the dark?



why would they glow in the dark??


----------



## cris (Jun 16, 2007)

I havnt actually looked at the stats but i think if you compared it to coal, more ppl would have died for coal power than chernoble anyway.

I dont actually like any politicians(well none so far anyway), but issues such as this leave no other option IMO. Although they are a bit tight with somethings(science, developing technologies etc.) they do seem to spend the money they do spend fairly well IMO. The Nuclear industry is great for us, about half of the labor party wouldnt even let us mine it if they had their way.


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 16, 2007)

Ramsayi said:


> yeah yeah
> A question for all the nuclear energy lovers.Would you still have the same attitude if it was next door to where you live?
> 
> Also what about the issue of spent fuel rods.I guess as long as its shipped to another country all is well eh?



Its not something that would be built right next door, But my reaction would be similar if they wanted to build a coal fueled plant next door, actually a coal plant puts more radioactive particles into the atmosphere then a nuclear one does! What would you prefer to breath fresh air or smoke/soot. SO i would prefer nuclear.

As for spent fuel, I would not have a problem it being buried here, its better to a few tons of waste stored away from humans then millions of tons of waste floating through our air getting breathed


----------



## cris (Jun 16, 2007)

Ramsayi said:


> yeah yeah
> A question for all the nuclear energy lovers.Would you still have the same attitude if it was next door to where you live?
> 
> Also what about the issue of spent fuel rods.I guess as long as its shipped to another country all is well eh?



I would be happy to work and live at one(provided there was room for my goannas).

Nuclear waste is part of the benifit we can charge other countries that cant safely store it millions if not billions of dollars of safely store it in solid rock, possibly safer than it was as naturally existing uranium.


----------



## Isis (Jun 16, 2007)

What the????????????


----------



## croc_hunter_penny (Jun 16, 2007)

mica said:


> Who wouldn't like to see snakes glow in the dark?



it makes them easier to find if you lose one


----------



## jack (Jun 16, 2007)

mrboajangles perhaps you should look into the actual economics of nuclear energy, the actual carbon dioxide load to the planet of nuclear energy, the disposal of waste and the actual sustainability of using yet another finite fuel... 
then i will believe you have actually believe you have done "a fair bit of research" and still believe that it is a good idea...
this has all been discussed before in a similar thread...


----------



## jack (Jun 16, 2007)

oh, and if it is something honest john or some other fool decides to go for, i dont care who's back yard it's in, i will be stopping such stupidity in any way i can...


----------



## Midol (Jun 16, 2007)

Sorry.

it is NOT a renewable resource and WILL run out.

The entire push for alternative energies is for RENEWABLE resources. I don't agree with it.

I don't agree with putting nuclear rods into the ground ('spent') and we don't have any logical way to get rid of it. 

100% against it and like Jack I'd do everything in my power to stop it


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 16, 2007)

yes it is another fuel that could run out but we have yet to make something that does not require this, solar and wind etc just wont do(yet) where does this carbon dioxide come from, I believe burnig coal produces more carbon dioxide then any other non renewable fuel!
Compare a Nuclear to coal fuel consumption, a coal consumes around 3000000 tons of coal, a nuclear consumes around 25 tons.(both plants would produce same power.)
And that fact is Aus has about 30% of the worlds Uranium. If we built an inrichment plant we would be completely set!


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 16, 2007)

midol: whats your reason for being against it, what should we use instead of coal then??


----------



## Midol (Jun 16, 2007)

Wind, solar and tidal...

Wind power can very easily run the country alone IMO. The only reason it isn't used is because some think it is ugly ;(


----------



## Mangy_Wombat (Jun 16, 2007)

I don't like nuclier because of the waste. I also don't trust it's safety as it would most likely be a big corporate that will be running them with only the bottom line being it's main concern. You can't trust big corporates.

Our area (Jervis Bay in NSW) has been listed as a possible site because the federal government owns the land where the navy base is. No one in the region wants a nuclier plant here no matter what supposed short term enviromental benefits there may be.

In this country wind and solar energy should be better utilised, particularly solar energy. The problem is that niether the government (federal and state) and business will do the required development to get these truly renewable resources of energy.


----------



## jack (Jun 16, 2007)

read my first post on this topic, do as i suggest... i can't be bothered arguing something so ridiculously obvious... may the good guys win the poll, goodnight.


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 16, 2007)

ok we know nuclear waste is not good, but there would be alot less of that then the waste coming from a coal burnign plant, do you like waste from a coal burning plant??
also i might remind people NSW does already have a nuclear reactor!! although its not a power producing plant!


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 16, 2007)

jack said:


> read my first post on this topic, do as i suggest... i can't be bothered arguing something so ridiculously obvious... may the good guys win the poll, goodnight.



Mate I have read it all, the problem is the stats change depending on which side is writing the article. So if you only read anti nuke articles it will make you believe how bad it is, same for the other side. Its all propergander!!!


----------



## cris (Jun 16, 2007)

How about some reasons to support your arguements? it has been in another thread i started last year, from what i remember the opposition was simply "i dont like it" rather than "its no good because >insert factual reason here<".

Australia has plenty of perfect safe places where it can be stored, currently most of it(in other countries) virtually just sits in sheds, we have the ability to look after it safely and make alot of money at the same time. We currently have radioactive material sitting in the ground anyway taking it out using it and putting it back in a more secure place isnt dangerous IMO.

IMO its simply a choice between being pro global warming or pro nuclear. Nuclear power is the ideal short-medium term solution until renewable environmentally friendly technologies can reach a point where they can be our primary sources of power(this will happen well before uranium runs out so that shoot down that scare tactic).


----------



## Forensick (Jun 17, 2007)

firstly, even in countries with large amounts of nuclear power, you still need coal covering the same area, as nuclear needs the provision of an instant shut down with out energy loss to services...

secondly... the driest country on earth, using the most water intensive power source on earth? yeah smart...
oh, also the whole 20 years-ish before it is even a viable alternative (see first point).
not to mention the fact, that other countries can manage useable genuinely renewable power (netherlands being mostly wind, despite us having windier areas) and germany having cities that are almost completely solar (despite us having more sun)
oh.... can i point out.... wind and solar have cheaper initial setup costs... coupled with the fact that energy makes its way into the grid sooner.

honest john doesn't care about nuclear one way or the other, it'll never be a significant power contributer in his life time, even if he wins. He just had to do something about the "enviroment" post Gore, and given until this year he didnt believe in climate change, he couldn't exactly go green.
finally as a political tool, its leverage against the ALP, doing nothing was political suicide, and agreeing with the ALP isn't politically expediant with IR still being a problem, and agreeing with the greens would just never float in the liberal marginals in northern nsw and qld.
That, and it creates a definate alp/lpa difference in the voters mind, as the ALP has no choice but to fight against, or risk its left and moderate cracking it of breaking caucus policy, and more importantly, losing green preferences.

so, finally...
its no good because, it is more expsensive, it is slow to start, it requires WAY to much water, it isn't actually a better enviromental option, and it is neither a short or long term solution where there are others that are bothshort medium and long term solutions.
and, it ISN'T a choice between pro nuclear, and pro global warming.
its a choice between nuclear, and genuinely better alternatives


----------



## hornet (Jun 17, 2007)

people make out that solar power is so good, but it actually take more energy to make a solar panal then it wil make in its lifetime.


----------



## Forensick (Jun 17, 2007)

while that is true in and of itself, for the ones that is in common use, it isn't with ones designed to mass produce power.

the best design as yet is an australian one, although under our current regime, they are seeking further funding in europe. (regime change begins at home!)
involves a hollow column of panels, with a ring of mirrors around it, that move and angle with the sun, it increases the intensity of the engergy hitting the panels by a factor of 100.
also, being hollow inside the column, it is fitted with turbines, as the engery hitting the panels is dramatically increased, so it they heat, which causes the air inside the column to heat, making it rise, and spinning the turbines.

what the anti solar people forget to mention, as really the only detractor to solar, is power storage, it is still restricted by battery capacity..... and given that is being fixed on a near daily basis, even the current energy conversion rates of solar panels increases.


----------



## cris (Jun 17, 2007)

I heard a rumour that our oceans had water in them, not sure if its true though :?


----------



## Forensick (Jun 17, 2007)

i also heard a rumour about salt not evaporating.


----------



## gosforddreaming (Jun 17, 2007)

i seen a doco the other night about sola panels, and thay can now produce 400watts from a 30cm x 15 cm panel , invented here in australia , amazing stuff , i think rushing in to nuclear power is the wrong thing for this country , wind and sola are the way to go. even wave energy looks like it will be a good option anything before nuclear ,, BYE BYE JOHNIE YOU HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH TO MUCH ITS TIME FOR RUDD TO RULE


----------



## stencorp69 (Jun 17, 2007)

Ramsayi said:


> yeah yeah
> A question for all the nuclear energy lovers.Would you still have the same attitude if it was next door to where you live?
> 
> Also what about the issue of spent fuel rods.I guess as long as its shipped to another country all is well eh?


 
Dumb arguement - would you been in favour of a coal fired power station if it was right next door to you? or a wind farm? there are lots of things we use in our society that I wouldn't want next door to me but that doesn't mean that I don't want the benefits or them. They just need to be planned to minimise the impact.

Also its a bit hypocritical us selling yellow cake overseas and then claim to be opposed to nuclear power.


----------



## stencorp69 (Jun 17, 2007)

Forensick said:


> firstly, even in countries with large amounts of nuclear power, you still need coal covering the same area, as nuclear needs the provision of an instant shut down with out energy loss to services...
> 
> secondly... the driest country on earth, using the most water intensive power source on earth? yeah smart...
> oh, also the whole 20 years-ish before it is even a viable alternative (see first point).
> ...


 
That's a better arguement


----------



## stencorp69 (Jun 17, 2007)

Forensick said:


> i also heard a rumour about salt not evaporating.


 
In correct, rain water contains some salt


----------



## Earthling (Jun 17, 2007)

http://www.melbourne.foe.org.au/images/nukesdoc/nukesweb.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1793818.htm


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 17, 2007)

thanks forensick for actually putting some points forward, solar is definatly the way of the future i hope, but it is a long time away until it is efficient enough, You say both germany and netherlands are using these renewable sources but they are both running nuclear power aswell. As for water, the idea would be to put a desalination plant next to the plant, thus feeding the plant and adding to our water supply. Can I also point out apart from the part that actually heats up, a coal and nuclear plant works exactly the same, they both use water to cool down the steam that runs the turbines. The both require a huge amount of water but that water is fine to use again, its not dirty, it does not go near anything radioactive, If cleaned like normal water it could safely be consumed.
While it is expensive to build, in the long run it should be cheaper to operate. With alot less emissions, alot less waste products, and alot less fuel required to run it. I dont understand how you can say its not a better environmental option?


----------



## Snake Catcher Victoria (Jun 17, 2007)

Vote rudd, 
The technology surrounding the production of energy from wind and solar panels has 
come along way in the last 2 years and is definitly worth pouring more money and effort into it.
Nuclear power in australia will signal the beginning of the end for our environment..jmo


----------



## Retic (Jun 17, 2007)

I think we do need to look at alternatives and maybe starting at home is a good start.
Have a look at this, imagine having no electricity bill after the initial outlay.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-2-2006-95061.asp


----------



## grimbeny (Jun 17, 2007)

I dont know all that much about nuclear power but i do know that the australian government needs to pour much more money into research. All fields need to be explored, without the concern of how it will affect the coal industry. Both labour and the coalition want to keep this mining boom going aslong as possible wich will only lead to a fateful end.


----------



## slim6y (Jun 17, 2007)

Want to use nuclear power? Why not use the natural heat in the non-mined radiation of uranium in the ground to heat water in large pipes to turn turbines. No actual removal of uranium and a very viable lengthy source of water heating. Incredibly effiecient and closed cycle - no waste, no nuclear reactors, no need for enrichment and billions of years worth of uranium remaining in its natural deposited area.

Why would you argue it if it's possible?


----------



## whatsup (Jun 17, 2007)

vote rudd and watch our economy go backwards.does no one remember our previous labor governments.no one likes politicians but they are all the same.i'm sure if you had access to labors files nuclear power is on the drawing board but they are opposing it in the run up to an election.there are plenty of fors and against nuclear power


----------



## Rennie (Jun 17, 2007)

whatsup said:


> vote rudd and watch our economy go backwards.does no one remember our previous labor governments.no one likes politicians but they are all the same.i'm sure if you had access to labors files nuclear power is on the drawing board but they are opposing it in the run up to an election.there are plenty of fors and against nuclear power



You mean they might spend money on the community instead of trying to look good with big budget surpluses only made from selling off their income producers like Telstra. I agree with your last part though.


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 17, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Want to use nuclear power? Why not use the natural heat in the non-mined radiation of uranium in the ground to heat water in large pipes to turn turbines. No actual removal of uranium and a very viable lengthy source of water heating. Incredibly effiecient and closed cycle - no waste, no nuclear reactors, no need for enrichment and billions of years worth of uranium remaining in its natural deposited area.
> 
> Why would you argue if it's possible?



If it were possible i wouldnt argue, Is it possible?? in its natural form uranium is not very radioactive infact you can handle yellow cake with a pair of normal latex gloves, as its alpha rays would not penotrate a sheet of paper, so i dont know how it would work?

ssssnakeman. I am all for solar but it would realistically be 50years away until it would be efficient enough to use on a mainstream scale. Coal stations make aprox 1/3 of our greenhouse pollution, should we keep doing this until we have worked out solar?


----------



## grimbeny (Jun 17, 2007)

mrboajangles said:


> I am all for solar but it would realistically be 50years away until it would be efficient enough to use on a mainstream scale. Coal stations make aprox



This is totally dependent on how much money is invested into research. Im sure if the howard government was to be in power the entire time 50 yrs is an understatement. However if we invest the money we should be right now we will see results. 50 yrs ago the world was a completly different place and over the next 50yrs im sure we will se just as extencive changes. Its matter of us choosing the direction we want this world to head in NOW.


----------



## Forensick (Jun 17, 2007)

mrboajangles said:


> thanks forensick for actually putting some points forward, solar is definatly the way of the future i hope, but it is a long time away until it is efficient enough, You say both germany and netherlands are using these renewable sources but they are both running nuclear power aswell. As for water, the idea would be to put a desalination plant next to the plant, thus feeding the plant and adding to our water supply. Can I also point out apart from the part that actually heats up, a coal and nuclear plant works exactly the same, they both use water to cool down the steam that runs the turbines. The both require a huge amount of water but that water is fine to use again, its not dirty, it does not go near anything radioactive, If cleaned like normal water it could safely be consumed.
> While it is expensive to build, in the long run it should be cheaper to operate. With alot less emissions, alot less waste products, and alot less fuel required to run it. I dont understand how you can say its not a better environmental option?



germany runs nuclear, and i know it is starting to use renewable energies in the hope of removing it....



stencorp69 said:


> Dumb arguement - would you been in favour of a coal fired power station if it was right next door to you? or a wind farm? there are lots of things we use in our society that I wouldn't want next door to me but that doesn't mean that I don't want the benefits or them. They just need to be planned to minimise the impact.



actually personally i think the wind turbines are beautiful.... my parents have been trying to get some on their property since they first saw them.... to the extent they started buying more property in order to be able to.


and finally, solar is most certainly not 50 years away..... its actually "as soon as we get some funding" years away. and of course coal will continue to be used until alternatives are actually putting more than enough power into the grid (which rules out nuclear EVER being a 100% alternative)... the whole "the ALP wants to stop the economy by removing all CO2 producers now" is a classic johnny scare people into voting for him tactic.
its probably worth mentioning that in europe countries which have converted to lower or no C)2 emmisions after the initial cost make a larger profit... not to mention the initial surge to the economy through jobs required to make the conversion.


oh "whatsup" before i even burn you from my memory for you "astute" don't you remember previous labor gov'ts...
obviously thats a well founded remark, given you know SO much about politics, espec labors internal politics, afterall you seem to to know the ALP was planning a nuclear plant... oh, except for, what was it.... OH! the ALP caucus having officialy been opposed to uranium mining for oh, AGES.....
even a half blind monkey within 50kms of a TV set would know that, what with the strife garret has been in recently...
but its, funny, when people talk about ALP and the economy.... i mean the first election the ALP lost after the huge intrest rate and unemployment issues, was..... the last one!
or did you all forget that keating one the election that came after the record unemployment,....
even then calling that "record unemployment" is a farce, we have worse unemployment now, but to fix it we just changed the definition of employed to "actively seeking work" and made people who work 1 hour in 14 days count as employed....


----------



## whatsup (Jun 17, 2007)

some people have no idea.do you believe everything you see on tv.if you are interested in politics maybe do a few searches before you burn people from your memory
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1923885.htm


----------



## Forensick (Jun 17, 2007)

actually i prefer to base my beliefs on caucus policy, on actually being involved in it, rather than reading the news.

All current talk doesn't change an existing caucus policy, and Rudd knows better than to upset caucus this year


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 17, 2007)

I am not saying nuclear is a 100% alternative. But in basically every way it is better then coal powered plants, our population grows bigger everyday and we need more energy to match, the question would be what sort of plant can we build suitable to power now and in the future, the only answer today would be non renewable sorces. (because currently a renewable source would not be efficient or practical at a mainstream level.) And as i said there is already a nuclear reactor in sydney, why does no one care about that one?


----------



## gosforddreaming (Jun 17, 2007)

over in eruope people are putting sola panels on there roofs and selling all there unused power to the power grid , thay still use the mains power but get it at a very discounted price . 
would work great here ,, i would lke to see mrboajangles drink some water that has been used for reatcor cooling ,,, i would never go near it , im sure you (mrboajangles) were harping on about the war games soon to be held in aus ? correct me if im wrong .


----------



## grimbeny (Jun 17, 2007)

Anyone who thinks jonnie will let nuclear power put the future of coal power plants in jeopordy they r mistaken.


----------



## Forensick (Jun 17, 2007)

mrboajangles said:


> I am not saying nuclear is a 100% alternative. But in basically every way it is better then coal powered plants, our population grows bigger everyday and we need more energy to match, the question would be what sort of plant can we build suitable to power now and in the future, the only answer today would be non renewable sorces. (because currently a renewable source would not be efficient or practical at a mainstream level.) And as i said there is already a nuclear reactor in sydney, why does no one care about that one?



without mentioning the fact that there are BETTER alternatives.
nuclear isn't an alternative to coal... because you would still need it! nuclear CANNOT be used as an exclusive power source... because of its "volitility" it needs the provision to be shut down at an instant, WITHOUT a huge loss in power. meaning, coal (as is used in most countries with nuclear) doubles up, or has the capacity, to double up on the grid.
then we have the water issue... sea water CANNOT be used.... the salt doesn't evaporate and will eventually clog pipes with its build up.
and could water lovin honest john and the Bull really be serious about "saving the murray" if the want to waste our very limited supply of water on an "alternative" power system that requires us to KEEP coal anyway?


----------



## Forensick (Jun 17, 2007)

grimbeny said:


> Anyone who thinks jonnie will let nuclear power put the future of coal power plants in jeopordy they r mistaken.



you are absolutely right...
because as i said....
nuclear means we MUST keep coal...
solar/wind/water means we can phase it out


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 17, 2007)

gosforddreaming said:


> i would lke to see mrboajangles drink some water that has been used for reatcor cooling ,,, i would never go near it , im sure you (mrboajangles) were harping on about the war games soon to be held in aus ? correct me if im wrong .



Before you make a quote like that i suggest you go and read the wargames thread! you will not see my name there!!
And do you understand what the water is used for in a powerplant?? can you explain to me why it would be unsafe to drink?? 

Forensick, i said earlier a power plant could use ocean water if matched with a desal plant.
as far as having to be shut down for various reasons, you would usually have more then one reactor and turbine,


----------



## grimbeny (Jun 17, 2007)

mrboajangles said:


> can you explain to me why it would be unsafe to drink?? Forensick, i said earlier a power plant could use ocean water if matched with a desal plant.



For starters a desal plant would be a huge waste of the energy which u have just created, then the amount of HOT water created is extremely excesive, how is it proposed this water is cooled ready for drinking?


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 17, 2007)

thats the whole point, we are running low on water, wouldnt a desal plant be ideal to help with this?? yes they are huge power consumers something that might struggle on the current grid, thats why a plant right next to it would be ideal. 
as for the hot water, what do you think the cooling towers on a plant are used for??There are actually regulations on how cool the water must be before put back into the environment. And i didnt say it was going to be drinking water strait from the plant, but for it to go back in the water system would not be a problem.Remember coal station makes power exactly the same in this part of the process, they too use water the same way


----------



## Forensick (Jun 17, 2007)

actually you'll find, that for the same reason of needing overlapping power supplies with nuclear you can't use OTHER nuclear for the over lap

like grim said, Howard has no desire to stop using coal.... his own policy says as much


----------



## moosenoose (Jun 17, 2007)

Arrrrrrgh!! Here we go again! This debate.....again!!!! :lol:

Nuclear energy is safe, and our only truly viable option if we're to stop our current emissions. (I'm not reading this any further so don't argue with me  :lol


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 17, 2007)

Forensick said:


> actually you'll find, that for the same reason of needing overlapping power supplies with nuclear you can't use OTHER nuclear for the over lap
> 
> like grim said, Howard has no desire to stop using coal.... his own policy says as much



Forensick, why cant you use another reactor/turbine to power while one is offline?


----------



## Veredus (Jun 17, 2007)

The major argument here for nuclear seems to be that it is better than coal.This completely ignores the points that 1. Nuclear will require the co-existence of coal power anyway and 2. There are already rapidly developing renewable alternatives to nuclear. All that is needed is research funding, certainly this will not happen if honest John wins another term, we have already seen how reluctant he is to put money into anything except courting George Bush.


----------



## grimbeny (Jun 17, 2007)

Alot of the northern european countries are now planing on decomisioning their nuclear power plants in an attempt to convert to renewable energy.


----------



## gosforddreaming (Jun 17, 2007)

i do apolagise for mistaking you for someone else, and yes i know what the water is used for and how its used and theres no way anyone could make me drink it ,know matter what you told me,, its the simple fact that it was used for cooling reactors , thay could turn around in 50 years time and say YOU KNOW WHAT IT PROBERLY WASNT A GOOD IDEA THAT WE MADE PEOPLE DRINK THAT WASTE WATER FROM THOSE REACTORS WE BUILT, IT COULD HAVE SOMTHING TO DO WITH THE HIGH DEATH RATE THESE DAYS ,,,,,,.IT WOULDNT BE THE FIRST TIME WEVE BEEN LIED TO , so why even take the risk when we DONT need to ?????


----------



## Forensick (Jun 17, 2007)

boajangles, because the SECOND reactor then is working at a higher output with no cover.
and is placed in a position of creating an even GREATER problem if it too needs to shut down.

yes, when it cmes to CO2 (and only CO2) nuclear is more enviromentally friendly...
the problem is it still requires coal... making the CO2 reduction moot
and then you have the waste and water issues associated with it.

Alternatively you have wind solar and water, that are getting much better... and several european countries have 100% carbon neutral towns already using it.
god, even honest johns "clean coal" is a more enviromentally sound alternative to nuclear... even if i still see THAT as a waste of money


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 17, 2007)

well its not actually used to cool reactors, its used to cool steam that turns the turbines, oh and that steam does not touch the reactor either.
Verdus, what are these other sources the simple fact is they dont exist, There are sources that look promising but they are no where near ready to be used on a major scale, yes more funding may move it at a faster pace but thats not the only thing that makes thing appear quicker. 
As for countries de-commissioning plants, you will also find countries are commissioning newer and more effiecient plants at the same time.


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 17, 2007)

alot of plants have upto 4 reactors/turbines would this not eliminate the problem?


----------



## Forensick (Jun 17, 2007)

mrboajangles....
yes, genuinely renewable sources will take time to get to the point where they are viable 100% alternatives...

howards own proposals have nuclear being over 20 years away from putting a single kilowatt into the grid...
more than enough time to fund and develop renewable energies, especially when they put power into the grid IMMEDIATELY, thus becoming a partial alternative to coal immediately


----------



## Forensick (Jun 17, 2007)

mrboajangles said:


> alot of plants have upto 4 reactors/turbines would this not eliminate the problem?



no, at least no according to the companies that howard is "looking at" to build/run his reactors...


----------



## slim6y (Jun 17, 2007)

mrboajangles said:


> If it were possible i wouldnt argue, Is it possible?? in its natural form uranium is not very radioactive infact you can handle yellow cake with a pair of normal latex gloves, as its alpha rays would not penotrate a sheet of paper, so i dont know how it would work?



There's three isotopes of uranium. U-238 is the most common and requires enrichment and is an alpha decayer (is there such a word?). So unless ingested it would be suggested it's harmless. Mabe a mild skin burn no worse than a small sunburn.

U-235 of course making up less than a percent of the earth's uranium is the rich fissible stuff. 

Now the technique I talked about earlier is possible, yes, but realistic. I don't know!

There has been research going on for this very thing. And considering Australia has almost 40% of the worlds uranium. with almost 1% of that being U-235 - that's where the natural source of heat comes from (I assume).

Anyhow, it may be sci fi at the moment, but they can definitely research and do something about it.

No nuclear power unless it's unmined and unaltered uranium.

And of course there's the pro-uranium supporters and they invest billions to tell you it's safe. And there's the anti-uranium supporters who invest billions to tell you it's not. In the end the one who wins is the one who put the most money into it. 

So good luck trying to get a nuclear power plant industry going here, because I can tell you now, even with this technology, the Japanese, the Americans and the Ukrainians are all very wary of what damages can occur. 

I seriously don't think you've done enough research to convince yourself it's 100% safe and the best way to go about things in this country. Because if you had, you'd see that it isn't - and it doesn't take a scientist to know that.

There have been several other threads eluding to this - I suggest you look at them to see what the arguments were there. 

Cheers


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 17, 2007)

I am not trying to get the industry going i am just intersested in the views of other people. But once again your sugestion of the of uranium in the ground to generate energy is just a pipe dream and would be even further away from solar power, but I am all for the research of better ways of producing energy.
for the uranium i think it only has to be around 3 to 4 % inriched with u235 for power production and the rest is u238 as you said, which really isnt that wasteful, considering its around 97% or so for weapons grade. It just makes the plant alot more effecient So i dont really see the problem with enriching the uranium apart from some of the dangerous chemicals used to do so.
As for the person who invests the most money will win, Iam not to sure about that, it would be alot easier just to stick with coal(which is also a good money maker)!! Just remember nuclear and coal are proven, the others are not
oh and as for being unsafe, You would be crazy to think that coal plants do not effect your health.


----------



## stencorp69 (Jun 17, 2007)

Forensick said:


> actually personally i think the wind turbines are beautiful.... my parents have been trying to get some on their property since they first saw them.... to the extent they started buying more property in order to be able to.....


 
That says more about them than helping your argument 



Forensick said:


> ....... record unemployment,....even then calling that "record unemployment" is a farce, we have worse unemployment now, but to fix it we just changed the definition of employed to "actively seeking work" and made people who work 1 hour in 14 days count as employed....


 
You must be spending too much time in caucus and party committee meetings. If there are so many people unemployed can you send some through to me, we've been trying to hire sales people and a receptionist for 2 months and more and seeing your so tight in with them maybe you could tender for a job futures contract to help them out. But maybe that's just WA for you, we've embraced AWA's and gave our employees extra leave and they decided it was a good deal and worth working for. It must be Labor thing (or at least the leader of the oppositions' wife) where they are so opposed to AWA that they screw the workers the first chance they got to show us how bad they are.


----------



## serenaphoenix (Jun 17, 2007)

You know its weird - but i could have sworn there were other clean energies available that don't make us go KABOOM. maybe not. 

Bad stuff!


----------



## serenaphoenix (Jun 17, 2007)

mrboajangles said:


> ok we know nuclear waste is not good, but there would be alot less of that then the waste coming from a coal burnign plant, do you like waste from a coal burning plant??
> also i might remind people NSW does already have a nuclear reactor!! although its not a power producing plant!



I like the waste from wind energy and solar energy and hydro energy... mmmm yummy... waste...

...the only reason these aren't being used on a large scale - and in some places they are - is because certain governments were so self-interested and focusing on devoting funds to ridiculous war projects that they haven't spent anything on R&D in many years. I'm pretty sure good 'ole Johnny said the other day something along the lines of - "even if i had spent the money on the environment ten years ago - we wouldn't be seeing the effects until now anyway.."

Hmmm... I love johnny logic.. if only eh?

you just said "we know nuclear waste is not good" and you are absolutely right, it's not. 

how about not being narrow minded and actually doing some of this "research"? wouldn't that be interesting?:shock:

Besides, this is only one of several dozen atrocities committed by Howard. I don't want to think about it.:cry:


----------



## serenaphoenix (Jun 17, 2007)

some of you people worry me...


----------



## albino (Jun 17, 2007)

up until now i thought most herpers were pretty left. .....but the one's on the left are *very *left.


----------



## grimbeny (Jun 17, 2007)

From what i have seen on these forums most herpers r quite right...


----------



## Forensick (Jun 17, 2007)

i woudnt say most herpers...
but this is a board populated heavily by middle class, suburbanites.
the group most predisposed to be conservative.... and tories are always the most sucked in by propaganda aimed at what could negatively affect them.

that and far too many people here seem to be from northern nsw and qld.....


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 18, 2007)

serenaphoenix said:


> You know its weird - but i could have sworn there were other clean energies available that don't make us go KABOOM. maybe not.
> 
> Bad stuff!



maybe you should some research!! Nuclear power means KABOOM!! good statement obviously a well researched one at that!!
How about you go and read why wind and solar etc are not mainsteam, yes with alot more funding and alot more years it might be, but nuclear is here today its proven.
And yes nuclear waste is bad but so is burnt coal waste! At least nuclear waste is stored out of harms way where coal wastes is floating around being breathed in!!
Maybe you should do research and not be so narrow minded like your kaboom statement pointed out!!


----------



## grimbeny (Jun 18, 2007)

As was stated earlier nuclear power is not here today it will be 20yrs atleast b4 any electricity will be put in the grid.


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 18, 2007)

grimbeny said:


> As was stated earlier nuclear power is not here today it will be 20yrs atleast b4 any electricity will be put in the grid.



But the technology is!! if they had the technology for a mass solar plant, how long do you think it would take to put on the grid? It would also be around the 20yr mark, problem is they dont have the 50+ years into the research and development that the nuclear industry does.
remember the first mobile phones? they were so hi-tech back then 10 years later look at the difference!!! Imagine how crap the first solar plant is going to be!!! It will take a fair bit of time until they can match coal or nuclear!!!


----------



## slim6y (Jun 18, 2007)

mrboajangles said:


> maybe you should some research!! Nuclear power means KABOOM!! good statement obviously a well researched one at that!!
> How about you go and read why wind and solar etc are not mainsteam, yes with alot more funding and alot more years it might be, but nuclear is here today its proven.
> And yes nuclear waste is bad but so is burnt coal waste! At least nuclear waste is stored out of harms way where coal wastes is floating around being breathed in!!
> Maybe you should do research and not be so narrow minded like your kaboom statement pointed out!!



To be honest I'm no longer convinced you've done the research.

You know, it's less to do with funding and more to do with business acceptance.

If I was a countyr that had 50000 years of coal resources (*a made up estimate) then I too would try and avoid the more environmentally friendly expensive options. It makes good economic sense. But if we do nothing, or grow nuclear power plants, we're not solving the intial problem of pollution. One pollution is no better or minimal than the other.

Solar efficiency isn't high, but solar heating IS! Afterall it heats an entire globe to an average of 15'C so surely the odd water cylinder wouldn't mind that refreshing solar boost?

Why, hello, that's close to 50% of all electrcity generated domestically. Do we really need a nuclear plant?

You see - while my current research is limited (admitedly) I would call on common sense. Find where the largest users are (camalco for instance) and work out where they can source the required amount from renewable/fossil fuels. Become efficent. That's all there is to it.

Common sense doesn't suggest we have nuclear power because of the above dangers and pollution. 

The day your common sense suggest that there is no alternatives is the day the human race finally gives up on themselves. So - for one we need better alternatives. And if it takes 20 years, let's work towards it NOW!

Two - we need it to be economically viable and practical - solar water heating already is!

Three - Renewable resources are the only way to go and as sure as the tides will rise and fall there's always gravitational potential in water.

And of course finally - technology always moves faster but Mr Uranium would like you to believe there's no other way. If you can honestly say Nuke Nuke Nuke is the way to go then I would strongly suggest you've narrowed your view so much that you won't need to see the forest through the trees because there just won't be a forest 

Please note: Some of the above may be or may not be slightly sarcastic but only to prove a point - similar to the 'kaboom' statement which was instantly picked on even though it was obviously a humour thing. 

Double note: Go watch that thing that IsK found on climate change on YouTube - I strongly recommend you Re-Do that scenario replacing it with nuclear power - and then re-think your whole strategy. Support or not.

And also - make sure you read previous climate, nuclear debates on this very site. There are some wonderful narrow minded views there to - but many of them well researched


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 18, 2007)

Yes your right I have done no research just like anybody who believes in nuclear power!
one pollution is not better then the other??? what a strange way of thinking!! I suppose you drive a pre 1986 car that does not have a cat converter!! Because the pollution from that car would be no worse then a post 1986 car with a cat converter...Right?!?!
And yes cutting down house hold consumption is the best idea, Why has it not been done with every house? why does not every house have solar hot water? I dont know. Even if power consumption was cut by 50% this does not change the fact that coal plants are a huge polluter! and we need something to replace them! and as mentioned nuclear is the only thing (at this point in time) that can do.
I know what your saying with the coal situation, but remember we also have around 30% of the worlds uranium aswell.
I didnt say anything about giving up on new ways, Cures for cancer doesnt happen over night nor does any invention/development!
and while the KABOOM comment annoyed me, that is because alot of people base their arguement on nuclear energy just because they hear its so dangerous!!!
I hope solar etc are the way of the future, but i am being realistic and know that thats not going to be the way for a long while yet.
Also what was that you-tube thing? i couldnt find the link!


----------



## slim6y (Jun 18, 2007)

mrboajangles said:


> Yes your right I have done no research just like anybody who believes in nuclear power!
> one pollution is not better then the other??? what a strange way of thinking!! I suppose you drive a pre 1986 car that does not have a cat converter!! Because the pollution from that car would be no worse then a post 1986 car with a cat converter...Right?!?!
> And yes cutting down house hold consumption is the best idea, Why has it not been done with every house? why does not every house have solar hot water? I dont know. Even if power consumption was cut by 50% this does not change the fact that coal plants are a huge polluter! and we need something to replace them! and as mentioned nuclear is the only thing (at this point in time) that can do.
> I know what your saying with the coal situation, but remember we also have around 30% of the worlds uranium aswell.
> ...



I've only managed to read the first two lines of your comment before replying with a smile on my face...

It was sarcasm.. no pollution is worse than the other... That was my point - coal pollution is extreme - full of potential green house gases (CO2 in particular), pm10 and other dangerous residues etc... Nuclear has radioactive waste requiring containment for a number of years, hot water etc etc etc... And my pre-80s car is propelled by water... but because of this stupid drought I converted it back to petrol 

Finding you the YouTube link now...

[video=youtube;1JnxtITOzug]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnxtITOzug[/video] from IsK's thread http://www.aussiepythons.com/showthread.php?t=57816

Replace green house gases etc in his grid with nuclear energy... and then re-think your situation and get back to me with a 14 page essay  actually, i have enough marking to do, just summarise your finding in two sentences - thanks 

And thanks for judging the opinions and not the person - it's hard to find that these days making good arguments even harder to come by!


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 18, 2007)

If that was sarcasm its very good because i dont see how that can come across of sarcasm!!
Not being funny but I could post a video on youtube about anything and make a point. Would you believe my point if I did? Its propergander!! There are two or more sides to every story and if you believe something you see on youtube to be evidence, it would be sad!!! He may have some points, but does this make him right?? You will find scientists on both sides of the fence on this arguement! The side that is right (to you) would more or less be the one that you as an individual agrees with. Right?
Its funny that you would sarcasticalyy say....And thanks for judging the opinions and not the person - it's hard to find that these days making good arguments even harder to come by!
look back at your posts to me and look how you said....And also - make sure you read previous climate, nuclear debates on this very site. There are some wonderful narrow minded views there to - but many of them well researched. I find this rather hypercritical!!
But no, i dont know if you own a pre 1986 car, but i find it funny that alot of people who own them are in a global warming debates!!! unless they are for global warming!!
Oh and coal plants also have radioactive waste except theirs is released with the smoke!! aleast nuclear plants contain it!!


----------



## Forensick (Jun 18, 2007)

mrboajangles said:


> But the technology is!! if they had the technology for a mass solar plant, how long do you think it would take to put on the grid? It would also be around the 20yr mark, problem is they dont have the 50+ years into the research and development that the nuclear industry does.
> remember the first mobile phones? they were so hi-tech back then 10 years later look at the difference!!! Imagine how crap the first solar plant is going to be!!! It will take a fair bit of time until they can match coal or nuclear!!!




actually you are quite wrong there....
especially given that new wind and solar energy goes onto the grid daily.
if we were to invent a 100% efficient solar coal replacement this year, and it was approved for use immediately, and given land.
energy would reach the grid damn quickly.... aside from being faster to build, the energy output is immediate.

nuclear is an atiquated energy source.


----------



## slim6y (Jun 18, 2007)

So not believing a believable argument on YouTube would encourage me to believe a non-beleivable argument you put forward here.. hmmmm let's figure that one out.


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 18, 2007)

Forensick said:


> actually you are quite wrong there....
> especially given that new wind and solar energy goes onto the grid daily.
> if we were to invent a 100% efficient solar coal replacement this year, and it was approved for use immediately, and given land.
> energy would reach the grid damn quickly.... aside from being faster to build, the energy output is immediate.
> ...


Well if thats true, (i dont know if it is or not) you have a point!!! and you forensick are one of the very few people on here who have sucessfully been arguing your side of the point!!
Slim6y: that last point was pointless, you knew exactly what i said and ment you you tried to change it around to sound stupid, good attempt!! just because an unknown guy on youtube says something, it does not make it true or right!!!


----------



## Forensick (Jun 18, 2007)

slim6y?
you are kiwi yes?
enlighten these fools seeing as new zealand did this over decade ago, and decided against it fo exactly the reasons i have been saying (and you guys don;t even have water issues)


----------



## slim6y (Jun 18, 2007)

Actually it was int he early 80s and it broke up the ANZUS treaty. But NZ didn't rquire the US as much as the A part of the treaty.

And yes, i am a kiwi and NZ is blessed with an indulgent amount of water - so although embarassing kiwi's don't actually require nuclear energy as 70% of all the energy created comes from hydro schemes. Several geo-thermal, wind and maybe a tiny amount of solar make up the renewable - the remaining is gas and coal. 

But new hydro facilities are unlikely to occur in the near future. 

Unfortunately Forensick - too many people see the 'easy option'. The real option is leaving the uranium unmined and using the natural heat that is produced at those depths to heat water to turn turbines. Research that one mrbojangles. You'll get far more use out of it and possibly be richer in the long run!

And secondly, No that point wasn't useless... It's true... why would I believe you over any other unknown. What he said made perfect sense - while on the surface was probably full of faults, but still made perfect sense. And you're saying that you couldn't do that grid and come up with an A/B true/false statements relating to nuclear power and still suggest it's ok?

Well... Anyhow... What you said has some truth of course - I'm on the internet and almost totally always wrong (unless I'm right). But I'm ok at admitting it


----------



## Forensick (Jun 18, 2007)

no no...
the ANZUS break up was nuclear subs docking...
there was a call for nuclear power.... tho it probably was the 80's


----------



## slim6y (Jun 18, 2007)

Forensick said:


> no no...
> the ANZUS break up was nuclear subs docking...
> there was a call for nuclear power.... tho it probably was the 80's



Yeah, ok, sorry, there's never been much debate in NZ over nuclear power. One person once spoke up but was quickly silenced without any troubles and sent packing back to Australia with his roo tail between his legs... Geez, if ya won't sell uranium to weapon makers who else are you going to sell it to?


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 18, 2007)

slim6y I will research that other form, whats it called? 
just because something makes sense, doesnt mean its right!!! If a person when on there and talked about how good nuclear power and it made perfect sense??? would you then believe it?? Or is because your already in the mindset that your against nuclear power, that anything for it would not make sense?
not having a go just interested to see if you understand what iam saying??


----------



## slim6y (Jun 18, 2007)

Noooooo mrbojangles, you misread me... I am a man of science(ish) - I may have trained at NZ's finest and taught in some of the finest schools in NZ, but by no means would I ever say all i have discovered is 100% correct and be all and end all... Why I have changed my mind about many things (often discovered by the Mythbusters team). 

Now, if it made sense, and someone could prove that the waste and safety of nuclear power was 100% perfect with nil risk of danger etc, then of course I would believe it. I know full well that is exactly what they're working towards so I have faith!

On a second note, of course fusion is a few millenia away - but it's still possible.

On a third note - to be honest the deep ground heating has been done in the US for about 30 years... I apologise but I have found little about it. But I am sure there's plenty there. 

Try the Energy Efficiency Council or what ever they call themselves in the US. There's bound to be something there on it.

I only heard it in passing - so I am not well versed on it. But it sounds plausible.

No research no comment (isn't that the way you do things (haha) )

But I do hope you find it, because it's great technology that is in use today in the US!

Cheers


----------



## mrboajangles (Jun 18, 2007)

slim6y said:


> No research no comment (isn't that the way you do things (haha) )
> Cheers



very true, Yeah i will look for it because it does sound good, but if its fairly un heard of it would prob mean its a long way away.
And while nuclear energy would not be 100% safe, i really cant think of something that is that humans have invented! Coal power has definately caused alot of damage, and is far from safe.


----------



## IsK67 (Jun 18, 2007)

slim6y said:


> I may have trained at NZ's finest and taught in some of the finest schools in NZ,



::Giggle::


----------



## Forensick (Jun 18, 2007)

mrboajangles said:


> very true, Yeah i will look for it because it does sound good, but if its fairly un heard of it would prob mean its a long way away.
> And while nuclear energy would not be 100% safe, i really cant think of something that is that humans have invented! Coal power has definately caused alot of damage, and is far from safe.



thankfully we didnt invent the sun wind or ocean.... all of which put out energy without us touching it....


----------



## Midol (Jun 18, 2007)

stencorp69 said:


> Dumb arguement - would you been in favour of a coal fired power station if it was right next door to you? or a wind farm? there are lots of things we use in our society that I wouldn't want next door to me but that doesn't mean that I don't want the benefits or them. They just need to be planned to minimise the impact.
> 
> Also its a bit hypocritical us selling yellow cake overseas and then claim to be opposed to nuclear power.



I'd be happy for them to place wind turbines ON our properly...


----------



## Midol (Jun 18, 2007)

mrboajangles said:


> thanks forensick for actually putting some points forward, solar is definatly the way of the future i hope, but it is a long time away until it is efficient enough, You say both germany and netherlands are using these renewable sources but they are both running nuclear power aswell. As for water, the idea would be to put a desalination plant next to the plant, thus feeding the plant and adding to our water supply. Can I also point out apart from the part that actually heats up, a coal and nuclear plant works exactly the same, they both use water to cool down the steam that runs the turbines. The both require a huge amount of water but that water is fine to use again, its not dirty, it does not go near anything radioactive, If cleaned like normal water it could safely be consumed.
> While it is expensive to build, in the long run it should be cheaper to operate. With alot less emissions, alot less waste products, and alot less fuel required to run it. I dont understand how you can say its not a better environmental option?



Do you realise how much power desalination needs? What do you plan to do with the super saline water? 

Not a single person here has said we should keep using coal so stop bringing it into the argument


----------



## Midol (Jun 18, 2007)

whatsup said:


> vote rudd and watch our economy go backwards.does no one remember our previous labor governments.no one likes politicians but they are all the same.i'm sure if you had access to labors files nuclear power is on the drawing board but they are opposing it in the run up to an election.there are plenty of fors and against nuclear power



Houses were more affordable under labour with an 18% interest rate than now...


----------



## slim6y (Jun 18, 2007)

Try Petrotherm (sp?) or geothermal holdings (i think)


----------



## Adzo (Jun 18, 2007)

A desal plant to produce water for power station cooling? 
We can't even get one for our domestic water supply!


----------



## zobo (Jun 18, 2007)

Just something to ad to the debate. Nuclear power produces very small amounts of actual physical waste. From a show I watched, it stated that a nuclear plant would only produce 1 ute load od radioactive waste per year, which gets treated and stored very carefully. We have a lot of room in our outback to have underground silos for storage. 
France has over 40 reactors since the second world war and nil problems and they are much more efficient at CO2 emissions per population etc than us. by approx 30%
It is not like in the movies people.
Listen to Spoonman on triple mmm at night and he makes some great points on issues like this.


----------



## raxor (Jun 18, 2007)

I hate the Spoonman. There's a reason he's been on late night radio for a whole decade.

Anyway.. energy production is going to be a perpetual issue in human society, while I don't agree with installing nuclear reactors, has anyone heard of a problem with the Lucas Heights reactor? Or the reactors at various US university grounds?

When something goes wrong with nuclear power it goes SERIOUSLY wrong.. but I liken it to using recycled water - the reasons politicians don't want it is because "something could go wrong" (every issue with other countries and their recycled water has been due to either human error/insufficient training or insufficient maintenance).

As long as everything is done perfectly and no human or computer error can occur, there's no issue.

In saying that, I don't want nuclear waste buried in our backyard. It takes millenia to break down and the storage for the waste would probably break down before the waste itself.

Of course, I'm talking out my behind and have no statistics to back any of this up so take it as you will


----------



## slim6y (Jun 18, 2007)

The above links sucked  sorry - that's my fault for listening to people before checking.

Type in energy efficiency in google and go to the EEA (something something) - it's very american but look at the geothermal part of it... It's so possible here it's not even funny!

Just a little investment...

Stuff this broadband package, think outside the square Jimbo... Broadband will occur in time, $4.7 billion would get a couple of resource grants and a geothermal powerplant in operation within 4 years! 

Man, where is this government taking us... I want fast internet for sure... Who doesn't... but I think the world has more 'pressing' concerns right now and Australia is coming up to a power crisis if we want to meet some sort of emission standards.

I don't know if anyone here will agree with me or their greed takes over. But that's a fair whack of money to spend on broadband (I realise it's the 17% holdings in telstra that the public have, but it doesn't mean that money has to be used that way).

And Telstra shoudl be installing that broadband on its expense - don't they make a profit?

I know in NZ our version of Telstra (Telecom NZ) makes over a billion per year in profit and NZ is a quarter the size of Australia (population). 

So why isn't that the election topic?

Oh well - it shows where a majority of voters sit on this side of the tassie if that's what they think will get the voters in. It's quite sad in a way, but thenm I do like the idea that io can download porn 50 times faster (haha, KIDDING)!


----------



## cris (Jun 18, 2007)

Midol said:


> Not a single person here has said we should keep using coal so stop bringing it into the argument



We dont have a choice really for quite some time, but nuclear power is far more environmentally friendly in the short-medium term. solar, wind etc. simply isnt anywhere near being a viable substitute, nuclear is(although more expensive). Im not really that with it right now, but im fairly sure its somewhere around 50 years until we will be able to use solar, wind etc. for the majority of our power(this doesnt take into account wars, economic problems(Rudd etc. lol) etc. which will no doubt happen).


----------



## Forensick (Jun 18, 2007)

cris said:


> We dont have a choice really for quite some time, but nuclear power is far more environmentally friendly in the short-medium term. solar, wind etc. simply isnt anywhere near being a viable substitute, nuclear is(although more expensive). Im not really that with it right now, but im fairly sure its somewhere around 50 years until we will be able to use solar, wind etc. for the majority of our power(this doesnt take into account wars, economic problems(Rudd etc. lol) etc. which will no doubt happen).




like i have said, and will keep saying...
yes, in co2 ONLY, nuclear is more efficient...
however... it is a MOOT arguement...
you can't say its better than coal, when it requires us to keep coal indefinately...

it doesn't matter how much better than coal it is, coz it can never be an alternative


----------



## slim6y (Jun 19, 2007)

In this mornings SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/news/investment/green-technology-hots-up/2007/06/11/1181414207082.html


----------



## Earthling (Jun 19, 2007)

truths:
Nuclear Power is dangerous if not adequately looked after.
Russia was a thriving economy only a few decades ago with healthy nuclear reactors. 
However even the might of Russia dwindled to a point where their reactors and subs etc are not maintained and accidents happend.
When it comes to the economic might of countries there is no guarantees.
Can you guarantee this will not happen to Australia and its nuclear 'future'? 
If your honest you would say yes, it could happen here.
Do you want your children and the future nation to have a mess like that on their hands? I dont. Therefore I look for healthy alternatives that will not cause this possible future catastrophe. 
This includes waste dumps which geographically may be fine for the required time, however politically anything could happen in the future. Wars, Nations Economically Collapsing do happen. Nuclear waste is a sort after item for weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION.
...........
"Oh, but we will be fine and we need to do something about green house emissions!"
The time scale with Nuclear Energy is also of concern. Generous estimates suggest it would take 10 years to get even a beginnings of a nuclear solution...(beginnings not end), when all the science suggests that climate change action needs to be taken sooner....now.
Then theres the Fact from PRONUCLEAR taskforce headed by Ziggy Switkowski that with a concerted program of 25 nuclear stations would only reduce greenhouse emissions by 18% by 2050. Well short of the suggested target of 50 to 60% reduction by 2050.
Nuclear energy is not the angel sent from the heavens to fix all our woes.
................
Iran's neighbours are currently very nervous about Iran going down the path of Nuclear Energy, when Iran, like Australia, is an energy rich country. If we went down the Nuclear path our neighbours would be understanably suspicous of our motives as Irans neighbours are about Iran. Instability with our neighbours...nothing like a war for the economy!
Oh but we would never use the waste for Nuclear purposes.......yeah right. Sir Phillip Baxter former head of the Australian Atomic Energy Commision has actually argued that a reason for Nuclear energy is the potential it gives us to develop Nuclear Weapons if we feel its needed. Even if the pollies say no way today....remember Howard and the GST? They backflip all the time. Never trust a Politicians word, rule Number 1. Also maybe todays wont...but can you guarantee tomorows wont? Course not.
So to sum up, Nuclear Energy is slow, not the solution to our heating planet, potentialy dangerous to our nation politically and physically. Why would you want to go down this crazy path I ask?


----------



## stencorp69 (Jun 19, 2007)

Midol said:


> I'd be happy for them to place wind turbines ON our properly...


 
and HOW ABOUT A coal fired power plant


----------



## stencorp69 (Jun 19, 2007)

www.ceto.com.au/home.php 

This is my preferred energy conversion plant


----------



## MMAnne (Jun 19, 2007)

stencorp69 said:


> www.ceto.com.au/home.php
> 
> This is my preferred energy conversion plant


 
Mmm. Yes I like that one.

I, personally, am a fan of renewable energy. I just think that non-renewable engery will cause us more problems down the road when we eventually DO run out of whatever the source may be.


----------



## Midol (Jun 19, 2007)

stencorp69 said:


> and HOW ABOUT A coal fired power plant



I already said I don't support Coal OR Nuclear so why even ask a stupid question like that?

I ONLY support renewable resources. Why would I let them burn coal on our property?


----------



## Midol (Jun 19, 2007)

stencorp69 said:


> www.ceto.com.au/home.php
> 
> This is my preferred energy conversion plant



Then what do we do with the super saline water?


----------



## raxor (Jun 19, 2007)

Midol said:


> Then what do we do with the super saline water?



Use it on our wounds as an alternative to Betadine


----------



## Forensick (Jun 20, 2007)

Midol said:


> Then what do we do with the super saline water?



this i heard from an ultr red neck

"we can just dump it in the ocean, acording to them hppies the ice is melting meaning less salt in the ocean, so this'd fix it... and if them hippies are wrong then it wonts matter anyway"

thankfully he votes liberal, so we already know there are only brain cells relating to how many cents he'll save under whatever gov't and how to be scared of "darkies"


----------



## Midol (Jun 21, 2007)

Forensick said:


> this i heard from an ultr red neck
> 
> "we can just dump it in the ocean, acording to them hppies the ice is melting meaning less salt in the ocean, so this'd fix it... and if them hippies are wrong then it wonts matter anyway"
> 
> thankfully he votes liberal, so we already know there are only brain cells relating to how many cents he'll save under whatever gov't and how to be scared of "darkies"



:O

What a moron. 

I guess... Life doesn't live in the ocean. Just a barren wasteland it is....


----------



## xycom (Jun 21, 2007)

All I can say is you must have rocks in your head if you would trust the Australian government with waste that will be around in for hundreds of thousands of years !

One of the places they planned to store the waste from the proposed nuclear plant just had an earth quake around 4 on the scale, it's also above an underground water table.

Per


----------

