Howard's Nuclear Plan (1 Viewer)

[iamsickofyear12]

Backing away because you know you're wrong?

Your ignorance affects not only that issue, but your view on this issue as well.

...Because no one on here ever agrees with an opinion different from their own. No matter what anyone says, no matter how much evidence there is against them. Arguing is completely useless so I'm not going to waste my time.

The main reason I put that as my title is to see if people noticed and hopefully annoy some people who did. I do believe it though... and I have my reasons, but I am not going to bother with them because we will never agree anyway.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Well, even going by this narrow minded view on the issue, all you have to do is look at Chenobyl to get a reality check

So it's 1986 now is it? I honestly thought it was 2007. I really need to get myself a calendar.

 

[samerin]

nucler energy???? everyone is scared??? of course if its built next to your house................????? i mean if its buily in some very populous area....concern is of great importance.........at the same time, we gotto look it from an economic point view and than environemntal.......nucler accidents do not happen everyday.....................and they wont happen here and they didnt happen in US for more then 60 years:burn:

 

[MaNiElla]

The main reason I put that as my title is to see if people noticed

Whoa...BoS is really full of attention seeking wannabes....LOL

 

[frog12986]

I think it is a good idea. It hasn't committed Australia to a nuclear industry, but increases the ability of it to develop into a viable alternative for the future. Any alternative energy platform should utilise nuclear power, and ultimatley as the greatest holder of uranium in the world, it would be remiss of us as a nation not to do so.

80% of the energy supply in France is supplied via the nuclear option and has been done so quite successfully.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Whoa, Jesus Christ fellas. Try to be a bit less one sided when evaluating all this stuff.

Rudd is a moron. He announced today that he will abolish the 25 year old policy banning Uranium mines.

I'm afraid he's stepped into the same trap that the previous Labor leaders stepped into. Not following the reality ofthe situation and simply saying and doing things because he thinks it's what voters want. He can go to hell.

Kind like Whitlam did with that white Australia business eh? If what he wants to scrap is a useless law, then there's no problem with the national conference voting to do so. The fact that the majority agrees with Rudd's sentiment shows that the ALP is moving along from what was a completely useless law. Three mines? What the hell is that?

It's an excellent plan. If completely fissioned, one pound (0.45 kilograms) of uranium-233 will provide the same amount of energy as burning 1,500 tons (1,350,000 kilograms) of coal.

Just keep in mind that it takes a lot of energy to mine this stuff, process it, dispose of it blah blah blah. In fact, it's so expensive that nuclear industry has to be heavily subsidised in Britain (and other countries I assume) by the government to offset these massive costs.

So it's 1986 now is it? I honestly thought it was 2007. I really need to get myself a calendar.

Oh please. While ignoring the possibility of nuclear power as an alternative energy option based soley on fears of another Chernobyl are a tad dramatic, there's no reason to do what you're doing, and totally act as if nothing like that could happen again. Nuclear power IS dangerous, moreso than coal, gas, oil, wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, wave blah blah. This definately needs to be taken into consideration when thinking about nuclear power.

None the less, I'm all for it. Stick one somewhere next to the coast outside of major population areas and watch our greenhouse gas emissions, and dependancy on coal fall. It's not an infinite solution...I mean, uranium won't last forever, but it looks to be an awesome option at this time.

 

[Sparcod]

A few good points from Nebuchanezzar.

80% of the energy supply in France is supplied via the nuclear option and has been done so quite successfully.

What works in one country may not work in another.

I'm actually quite undecided in this nuclear debate. I like the fact that there's less Co2 being spat out into the atmosphere but there are still controversies concerning the huge start up costs, the need to "dispose" nuclear waste and the possibility of a fatal disaster. Bear in mind, uranium mining has controversies of its own.

If Australia does build one, it's going to be really difficult because of costs and controversies and a relatively low population and/or population density. There are also countries such as Italy and Switzerland that are decommissioning nuclear power plants.

 

[frog12986]

What works in one country may not work in another.

Everyone seems to be readily able to compare European economies to Australia in terms of performance, industrial relations and fossil fuel consumption yet comparing energy supply isn't possible?

In light of that, you do make an extremely valid point. In relation to each of those areas (industrial relations, climate change and the like) the variables in each country are different, as are the consequences.

 

[Sparcod]

Yes. Indeed.

I always thought that most of Europe resorted to nuclear energy because their mining industry isn't as good as Australia's and also, it's because they can due to a large population and hence, enough money to fund these things.

 

[Sparcod]

State Libs NIMBY on nuclear power
The Victorian Liberal Party leader himself says no to nuclear power.

 

[townie]

shouldnt we be really looking towards energy created by renewable resources, thats my main qualm with nuclear power, it's just replacing one limited resource with another

 

[iamsickofyear12]

shouldnt we be really looking towards energy created by renewable resources, thats my main qualm with nuclear power, it's just replacing one limited resource with another

We should but there really isn't anything around at the moment that is efficient enough.

 

[that//girl.]

hmmm... i found this info and thought it might be relevant.. particularly because i'm against the use of nuclear energy... there are other ways to finding energy, safe to both people and the environment -

"We already have the technologies to commence a rapid transition to an energy future based on renewable energy and efficient energy, with gas playing a role as an important transition fuel. The barriers to this transition are not primarily technological or econmic, but rather are the immense political power of vested interests"
-Mr Mark Diesendorf
Energy expert at the University of NSW, Institute of Environmental Studies.

Why Nuclear Energy isn't the answer -
1. Radioactive waste left behind from Nucelar Plants needs to be kept away from people and the environment for as long as 250,000 years. Thats 7,500 generations of our children that will be dealing with the waste.

2. The more uranium Australia mines, the more pressure there will be for us to take back the worlds nuclear waste. If the nuclear industry gets it's way, Australia will be the world's uranium quarry and radioactive waste dump.


3. Nuclear weapons are but one of the by-products of a Nuclear industry. If you have a reactor, you have the ability to make a bomb. The risk of water contamination is very high at the uranium mining stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. Rio Tinto's Ranger uranium mine in the Kakadu National Park has a troubled history over 120 documented incidents, spills and leaks since it opened in 1981. Workers were recently exposed to drinking and washing water with uranium levels 400 times greater than the maximum Australian safety standard. The contamination - and a subsequent seperate leak of around 150,000 litres of contanimated water into a creek system of Kakadu World Heritage listen wetlands - saw the mine temporarily forced to shut down.

Why risk using Nuclear Energy??
I definitely will NOT be voting for someone who looks to build plants in Australia.